You forget that this rule is followed only so long as the backbenchers believe that it benefits the party.
People hate elections. They want to elect a government, and be done with it for the next 3-5 years. If the backbenchers vote against the government, under normal circumstances, that just pisses Joe Voter off. Hence there is anger at the incumbent party for forcing people to the polls early, and the Opposition has a good chance at forming the next government. So voting against your party is usually a bad thing.
Bug if, say, tomorrow, the Prime Minister introduced a new bill calling for genocide of a racial minority or something abhorrent like that, then the backbenchers would vote against the government, disown the PM, and get a new leader for the next election, since Joe Voter would rather go to the polls early than have such a horrible law passed.
So voting with the party doesn't make the PM a dictator; (s)he does have a lot of power, but this power can only be used within the confines of what people find acceptable. So long as the government doesn't step too far out of line, our system gives us what the Constitution calls for: peace, order, and good government.
My question is, is there any project of the same calibre (of would be soon), that does a native look and feel (modern and cool, like in movies) for Linux/BSD's ?
Amma, the destops you see in movies look cool on the screen, but that's their only good point. Their user interfact is horrible. Movie producers purposefully give computers on movies a "computerish" look; for example, movie computers often have green text (a la the text in The Matrix, when Neo sees it), which has been obsolete for years -- it's hard on the eyes.
Movie destops also have an excessive amount of animation. Trust me, you'd hate any desktop that worked that way -- it'd run like absolute molasses.
The user experience I've had that most closely resembles a movie desktop is application built using Flash, like you find on web sites and enhanced CDs. These apps try to emulate the look and feel of movie desktops.
I agree. I would like to see and "experemental" desktop, even if it's just for fun. As crazy as you can get while still being workable.
I think making a new window manager, like BlackBox or FluxBox, is as crazy and experimental as you can get. Making a system as big as a desktop work is a huge job. Keep in mind that a desktop environment consists of not only a window manager, but a set of libraries (QT/KDELIBS for KDE, GTK for GNOME), which are a huge job in and of themselves. Add in the need for core apps (since no one but no one will use a desktop that doesn't come with solitaire), and you've got a huge project, that people won't want to take a huge risk on.
Also, you don't need to emulate Windows using KDE/GNOME. Their default configurations just include a panel at the bottom of the screen with a K or a foot where the Windows Start Button is. The user is free to change this.
Finally, I must point out that a third major desktop environment is the last thing Free Software needs right now. We're already fractured by the fact that developers (both Free and commercial) must choose whether to base their apps on QT or GTK. Many major projects choose to target neither: OpenOffice, Mozilla, Kylix, and Adobe Acrobat Reader, for example. A better option would be for KDE and GNOME to move to a new user interface, while keeping their libraries intact.
If you had said "Faith" instead of "Buffy", your post would not have been Offtopic. Interesting, perhaps. And it certainly wouldn't be Overrated.
Please pay attention to such details in your future posts.
Re:Correlation, not causation
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
This is correlation, not causation.
No, this is causation. Observe the chain of events:
People believe that they are either weak or unsafe
People allow a dictatorial government to come to power, examples:
Cuba let Castro and the communists in, because their economy was owned by foreign businesses
China let the communists in, again because they didn't have control of their country (British China, French China, American China....)
Germany let Hitler and the Nazis in, because they were weak after WWI
As a result of a dictatorial government that tolerates no opposition coming to power, people lose their safety, since their own government is free to kill them if they step out of line (I'm sure I don't need to list examples here)
Has anyone noticed...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That on average, citizens of countries with more freedom tend to be much safer than citizens of countries with less?
Think of the world's non-democratic countries, like Iraq, or Argentina under the fascists. Are the people there safe? NO! People are taken from their homes in the middle of the night, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Why? Because people arent' free to question and criticise the government. Because people either believe that their government cannot be opposed, or that opposing it would weaken their country.
Your freedom doesn't harm your safety. It guarantees it. Freedom exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
And as soon as you try to trade your freedom for safety, you will find that you've lost them both.
I agree with Perens' demand for open document formats. So long as the format is open, I have choice in what application I use. I can choose to read a PDF file, for example, with gv or Acrobat Reader. The competition comes from who can make the product more convenient to use.
When formats are closed, then one product must dominate. This is what we've already seen happen with MS Office, and we're seeing again with Internet Explorer, since MS is leveraging its market dominance to saturate the market with non-standard HTML (ie the Microsoft Document Object Model), thereby locking everyone into using IE.
Moderation of hits?
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If letting Google rank the pages is undemocratic, what about a system in which, when you go to a page from a Google search, Google adds a frame at the top of your page that let's you vote on how useful this page was on a scale of 1-10?
Then, the most popular hits for a given set of search words would have their Google ranking rise. Now that's democracy.
I worry less about the current GPL because GNU/FSF has had a bunch of lawyers look it over. You may notice from the wording that it isn't a "simple" license.
The paper refers to a proposed revision of the GPL. A link to it is on the page.
This GPL revision seems like a completely new GPL. It's language is much simpler, and devoid of legalese. Does anyone else worry about such a complete re-write being enforcable?
In fact, far more people have far more to fear from Christians, than vice-versa.
Any Christian that you have to be afraid of isn't a good Christian. A Christian is supposed to realize that God loves everyone, him/herself included. Knowing this, Christians are to reflect that love, loving their neighbours as themselves, and even loving their enemies (See Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount).
constant persecution of groups (like homosexuals) that Christians are constantly getting away with... and now with the Christians trying to get evolution pushed out and Christian Creationism taught in High Schools in Georga
I'd ask you to say "Christian Fundamentalists" here. My Church allows homosexuals to be ministers - I'd hardly call that persecution. And most non-Fundamentalist Churches accept evolution (even the Pope has accepted it). It is very unfair to lump the rest of us in with the Fundamentalists when talking about such issues as homosexuality and creationism/evolution, as it scares people away from us on the basis of someone else's actions.
If you've had bad experiences with Christians in the past, I'm very sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, even if you don't believe in God, God loves you, and doesn't want these guys to victimize you.
True, many Christians seem to have a persecution complex. This comes from stories from the New Testament (which comes from a time when Christians really were prosecuted) and stories from nations in which Christians still are proseduted (ie. Sudan). Seriously, if you read some of the Roman documentation of the time out there, you will see that prosecution of Christians was very real back in the day.
However, I don't think Europe and the Americas are places where Christians have much to fear (with a few exceptions, I know... don't try being the wrong kind of Christian in Ireland.).
I can sympathize with that guy taking a defensive attitude on Slashdot, though. I doubt that many people here are favourably-disposed to Christianity. I doubt, for example, that I'd have any chance of getting modded up if I posed a quotation from the Bible that I felt relevant to a discussion here on Slashdot.
Anyhow, I can see both sides, here. I just wish that everyone, regardless of their religion, could bring the motivation for their beliefs on some of the ethical issues that come up here into the discussion, without fear of being ridiculed. I'm a Christian, but I'd be very interested if a Buddhist or Muslim brought the teachings of the Dhammapada or Qu'ran, for example, into a discussion here.
There is no confirmation that Jesus even existed from the time he would have lived
Have you heard of the "Anti-Stratfordians"? They believe that Shakespeare did not exist. You'll always find doubt about great historical figures. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Most historians believe that both Shakespeare and Jesus were real people.
outside the New Testament except for Josephus' writings
There's two independent sources. Furthermore, what you're saying here is completely false. There are documents from outside the Christian Scriptures that talk about Jesus; many of them have been translated into English by the Jesus Seminar. Do a Google search for the "Gospel of Thomas", which wasn't included in the New Testament, and is believed to be independent of the canonical gospels, and contain authentic material (since it tells some of Jesus' parables in slightly different forms).
which have been embellished by monks.
That doesn't change the fact that they must have had something to start with. Since Josephus was a Jew, he probably wrote the part about Jesus being a rabble rousing prophet and his brother James being killed, while the Christian monks likely added the part about the miracles (presumably, if Josephus believed that Jesus performed miracles, then he would have been a Christian, not a Jew).
A paper putting forth the theory that Josephus made Jesus up, and wrote the gospels was published by a group called the Society of Josephus. It is frequently suppressed.
A paper saying that something is true doesn't make it true. And who are the "Society of Josephus"? Google doesn't offer any information on them. And their name hardly makes them sound reputable. Are they attached to any university?
Furthermore, this theory seems very unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are many Gospels not in the New Testament. Furthermore, there are also Gospels written by the Jewish Christians; wouldn't it be more likely that Josephus would have written such as Gospel as these?
If Jesus really existed, and lived in the time of Herod, than our calendar system should be radically revised, as Herod was dead by 30 BC.
Please check your history. According to this source, Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. (There were many rulers named Herod, however; perhaps you have them mixed up.) And we already know that Jesus wasn't born in 0 B.C., this isn't news. Keep in mind that the Gregorian calendar was created in the middle ages, so we can't expect them to have pin-point accuracy.
And no, the calendar isn't going to change. The terms "BC" and "AD" are being switched in many places to "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) in order to secularize the Gregorian calendar.
This site presents the evidence for and against Jesus' existence, without taking sides. If you look at the "against" information, it mostly comes down to lack of documentation by Roman historians of the time. But this should not be a surprise, because Judea (that's what Israel was called at the time) was merely an impoverished occupied territory. Many Judeans were crucified by the Romans. To the Romans, Jesus was just one more rabble-rousing Judean prophet better left forgotten.
I can claim to be a Jedi here in the US and I won't get fined for it (or will I?).
The problem isn't with saying you're a Jedi, the problem is with lying on your census. According to the article, an email circulated, saying that if enough people claim to be Jedis, then Australia must recognize Jedism as a religion. So, many people who said they were Jedis were just playing an (illegal) prank on their government.
I don't know what the law is in the US, but in Canada, lying on your census is illegal. Australia seems to have similar laws, so that's what's happening here.
I could see how some people using smaller distributions could be annoyed that a lot of popular commercial software is targeted to Red Hat.For example, back when I used Mandrake, I couldn't get Java to work, because Sun only offered it as a Red Hat RPM (which didn't work on Mandrake 8.0). Of course, Sun has gotten better now, offering the JDK in a distribution-independent format.
This doesn't make Red Hat evil, but I can see how many people could target their frustrations at Red Hat. They are the market leader, and the fact that they are well-supported makes people more likely to use thier distro.
Get a near-monopoly on desktop operating systems, expand into developer tools, and push the competition virually out of the marketplace by making people think they have to use your product.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
members are expected to vote along party lines
You forget that this rule is followed only so long as the backbenchers believe that it benefits the party.
People hate elections. They want to elect a government, and be done with it for the next 3-5 years. If the backbenchers vote against the government, under normal circumstances, that just pisses Joe Voter off. Hence there is anger at the incumbent party for forcing people to the polls early, and the Opposition has a good chance at forming the next government. So voting against your party is usually a bad thing.
Bug if, say, tomorrow, the Prime Minister introduced a new bill calling for genocide of a racial minority or something abhorrent like that, then the backbenchers would vote against the government, disown the PM, and get a new leader for the next election, since Joe Voter would rather go to the polls early than have such a horrible law passed.
So voting with the party doesn't make the PM a dictator; (s)he does have a lot of power, but this power can only be used within the confines of what people find acceptable. So long as the government doesn't step too far out of line, our system gives us what the Constitution calls for: peace, order, and good government.
Of course, I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad. ;-)
...due to Microsoft's new licensing scheme. That's something a lot of businesses hate with something of a passion, I believe.
The best example I can think of is the "Enhanced CD" part of the Enterprise soundtrack. The site for the new Star Trek movie is a decent example, too.
My question is, is there any project of the same calibre (of would be soon), that does a native look and feel (modern and cool, like in movies) for Linux/BSD's ?
Amma, the destops you see in movies look cool on the screen, but that's their only good point. Their user interfact is horrible. Movie producers purposefully give computers on movies a "computerish" look; for example, movie computers often have green text (a la the text in The Matrix, when Neo sees it), which has been obsolete for years -- it's hard on the eyes.
Movie destops also have an excessive amount of animation. Trust me, you'd hate any desktop that worked that way -- it'd run like absolute molasses.
The user experience I've had that most closely resembles a movie desktop is application built using Flash, like you find on web sites and enhanced CDs. These apps try to emulate the look and feel of movie desktops.
I agree. I would like to see and "experemental" desktop, even if it's just for fun. As crazy as you can get while still being workable.
I think making a new window manager, like BlackBox or FluxBox, is as crazy and experimental as you can get. Making a system as big as a desktop work is a huge job. Keep in mind that a desktop environment consists of not only a window manager, but a set of libraries (QT/KDELIBS for KDE, GTK for GNOME), which are a huge job in and of themselves. Add in the need for core apps (since no one but no one will use a desktop that doesn't come with solitaire), and you've got a huge project, that people won't want to take a huge risk on.
Also, you don't need to emulate Windows using KDE/GNOME. Their default configurations just include a panel at the bottom of the screen with a K or a foot where the Windows Start Button is. The user is free to change this.
Finally, I must point out that a third major desktop environment is the last thing Free Software needs right now. We're already fractured by the fact that developers (both Free and commercial) must choose whether to base their apps on QT or GTK. Many major projects choose to target neither: OpenOffice, Mozilla, Kylix, and Adobe Acrobat Reader, for example. A better option would be for KDE and GNOME to move to a new user interface, while keeping their libraries intact.
The R2 Droid has memory archives of many Star Wars characters, and will react at the mention of their names.
Kid: I saw The Phantom Menace last night. Jar-jar is so cool!
R2: Whee-a-whoo! KILL DESTROY KILL DESTROY...
If you had said "Faith" instead of "Buffy", your post would not have been Offtopic. Interesting, perhaps. And it certainly wouldn't be Overrated.
Please pay attention to such details in your future posts.
This is correlation, not causation.
No, this is causation. Observe the chain of events:
If I haven't convinced you, perhaps you should visit Amnesty International's site. Ask them about the desaparecidos .
That on average, citizens of countries with more freedom tend to be much safer than citizens of countries with less?
Think of the world's non-democratic countries, like Iraq, or Argentina under the fascists. Are the people there safe? NO! People are taken from their homes in the middle of the night, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Why? Because people arent' free to question and criticise the government. Because people either believe that their government cannot be opposed, or that opposing it would weaken their country.
Your freedom doesn't harm your safety. It guarantees it. Freedom exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
And as soon as you try to trade your freedom for safety, you will find that you've lost them both.
I agree with Perens' demand for open document formats. So long as the format is open, I have choice in what application I use. I can choose to read a PDF file, for example, with gv or Acrobat Reader. The competition comes from who can make the product more convenient to use.
When formats are closed, then one product must dominate. This is what we've already seen happen with MS Office, and we're seeing again with Internet Explorer, since MS is leveraging its market dominance to saturate the market with non-standard HTML (ie the Microsoft Document Object Model), thereby locking everyone into using IE.
If letting Google rank the pages is undemocratic, what about a system in which, when you go to a page from a Google search, Google adds a frame at the top of your page that let's you vote on how useful this page was on a scale of 1-10?
Then, the most popular hits for a given set of search words would have their Google ranking rise. Now that's democracy.
From the link:
How is that possible?
I thought the web browser was an inseparable part of the home.
I worry less about the current GPL because GNU/FSF has had a bunch of lawyers look it over. You may notice from the wording that it isn't a "simple" license.
The paper refers to a proposed revision of the GPL. A link to it is on the page.
This GPL revision seems like a completely new GPL. It's language is much simpler, and devoid of legalese. Does anyone else worry about such a complete re-write being enforcable?
In fact, far more people have far more to fear from Christians, than vice-versa.
Any Christian that you have to be afraid of isn't a good Christian. A Christian is supposed to realize that God loves everyone, him/herself included. Knowing this, Christians are to reflect that love, loving their neighbours as themselves, and even loving their enemies (See Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount).
constant persecution of groups (like homosexuals) that Christians are constantly getting away with... and now with the Christians trying to get evolution pushed out and Christian Creationism taught in High Schools in Georga
I'd ask you to say "Christian Fundamentalists" here. My Church allows homosexuals to be ministers - I'd hardly call that persecution. And most non-Fundamentalist Churches accept evolution (even the Pope has accepted it). It is very unfair to lump the rest of us in with the Fundamentalists when talking about such issues as homosexuality and creationism/evolution, as it scares people away from us on the basis of someone else's actions.
If you've had bad experiences with Christians in the past, I'm very sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, even if you don't believe in God, God loves you, and doesn't want these guys to victimize you.
True, many Christians seem to have a persecution complex. This comes from stories from the New Testament (which comes from a time when Christians really were prosecuted) and stories from nations in which Christians still are proseduted (ie. Sudan). Seriously, if you read some of the Roman documentation of the time out there, you will see that prosecution of Christians was very real back in the day.
However, I don't think Europe and the Americas are places where Christians have much to fear (with a few exceptions, I know... don't try being the wrong kind of Christian in Ireland.).
I can sympathize with that guy taking a defensive attitude on Slashdot, though. I doubt that many people here are favourably-disposed to Christianity. I doubt, for example, that I'd have any chance of getting modded up if I posed a quotation from the Bible that I felt relevant to a discussion here on Slashdot.
Anyhow, I can see both sides, here. I just wish that everyone, regardless of their religion, could bring the motivation for their beliefs on some of the ethical issues that come up here into the discussion, without fear of being ridiculed. I'm a Christian, but I'd be very interested if a Buddhist or Muslim brought the teachings of the Dhammapada or Qu'ran, for example, into a discussion here.
There is no confirmation that Jesus even existed from the time he would have lived
Have you heard of the "Anti-Stratfordians"? They believe that Shakespeare did not exist. You'll always find doubt about great historical figures. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Most historians believe that both Shakespeare and Jesus were real people.
outside the New Testament except for Josephus' writings
There's two independent sources. Furthermore, what you're saying here is completely false. There are documents from outside the Christian Scriptures that talk about Jesus; many of them have been translated into English by the Jesus Seminar. Do a Google search for the "Gospel of Thomas", which wasn't included in the New Testament, and is believed to be independent of the canonical gospels, and contain authentic material (since it tells some of Jesus' parables in slightly different forms).
which have been embellished by monks.
That doesn't change the fact that they must have had something to start with. Since Josephus was a Jew, he probably wrote the part about Jesus being a rabble rousing prophet and his brother James being killed, while the Christian monks likely added the part about the miracles (presumably, if Josephus believed that Jesus performed miracles, then he would have been a Christian, not a Jew).
A paper putting forth the theory that Josephus made Jesus up, and wrote the gospels was published by a group called the Society of Josephus. It is frequently suppressed.
A paper saying that something is true doesn't make it true. And who are the "Society of Josephus"? Google doesn't offer any information on them. And their name hardly makes them sound reputable. Are they attached to any university?
Furthermore, this theory seems very unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are many Gospels not in the New Testament. Furthermore, there are also Gospels written by the Jewish Christians; wouldn't it be more likely that Josephus would have written such as Gospel as these?
If Jesus really existed, and lived in the time of Herod, than our calendar system should be radically revised, as Herod was dead by 30 BC.
Please check your history. According to this source, Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. (There were many rulers named Herod, however; perhaps you have them mixed up.) And we already know that Jesus wasn't born in 0 B.C., this isn't news. Keep in mind that the Gregorian calendar was created in the middle ages, so we can't expect them to have pin-point accuracy.
And no, the calendar isn't going to change. The terms "BC" and "AD" are being switched in many places to "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) in order to secularize the Gregorian calendar.
This site presents the evidence for and against Jesus' existence, without taking sides. If you look at the "against" information, it mostly comes down to lack of documentation by Roman historians of the time. But this should not be a surprise, because Judea (that's what Israel was called at the time) was merely an impoverished occupied territory. Many Judeans were crucified by the Romans. To the Romans, Jesus was just one more rabble-rousing Judean prophet better left forgotten.
Size doesn't matter. :P
for a Slashdot poll:
My preferred video format is:
I bet such a poll would show why Sony did this....
Why not have a little fun?
Because in most countries, lying on your census is illegal. Hence the hubbub.
I can claim to be a Jedi here in the US and I won't get fined for it (or will I?).
The problem isn't with saying you're a Jedi, the problem is with lying on your census. According to the article, an email circulated, saying that if enough people claim to be Jedis, then Australia must recognize Jedism as a religion. So, many people who said they were Jedis were just playing an (illegal) prank on their government.
I don't know what the law is in the US, but in Canada, lying on your census is illegal. Australia seems to have similar laws, so that's what's happening here.
Everyone should list their religion as "Free Software!"
I could see how some people using smaller distributions could be annoyed that a lot of popular commercial software is targeted to Red Hat.For example, back when I used Mandrake, I couldn't get Java to work, because Sun only offered it as a Red Hat RPM (which didn't work on Mandrake 8.0). Of course, Sun has gotten better now, offering the JDK in a distribution-independent format.
This doesn't make Red Hat evil, but I can see how many people could target their frustrations at Red Hat. They are the market leader, and the fact that they are well-supported makes people more likely to use thier distro.
Get a near-monopoly on desktop operating systems, expand into developer tools, and push the competition virually out of the marketplace by making people think they have to use your product. :-)
The same technique works well with web browsers and word processors.