Um...since when is "peace of mind" a right? I realize in today's society that being offended, uncomfortable, and such is considered evidence of a crime but only in the politically correct sense. It's still not right and not "a" right.
Yep. We're all making the assumptions that Global Warming isn't a natural cycle of change. What if, like a hoard of scientists believe (granted, not the "gods" most environmentalists want to agree with), it is a natural warming? Then our efforts to reverse this are a perversion. We, then, become what we claim we loath: someone negatively impacting the environment. But hey, we can sit back on our fat grant checks living la vita green.
I agree. After this, no one can defend Microsoft by saying, "Oh it's just good business." They've laid themselves out as the top-down software company and this typifies they. I agree, they're evil inherent. Like kicking puppies.
What's more frightening is that this guy has the balls to introduce the bill. Eventually, shit like this gets passed. Trans-fats anyone? Socialism. Fight it or be it.
We have to teach our kids that Windows is evil. And I mean inherently. Like kicking a puppy or midgets masturbating to Michael Bolton songs. Okay, it got lost there but you get my point!
"This is VistaMan, kids! If suspects you have pirated software he'll shut off your video card, cripple the OS, and send you a nastygram! If it turns out you really didn't you can have JUST enough OS back to send an email to Microsoft, plead your case, and get your expensive computer back!"
Of course, I meant to say intolerance but that was a nice retort.:) Look, I have no interest in their work in telecommunications. That's doesn't mean I can't competently make a comment about their debacles. As for how this isn't biased it's easy. This is not the same as not hiring someone who doesn't like my favorite singer. U.N. failures are basically illustrations of stupidity. If a prospective employee had all the credentials I needed but appeared to be a moron on what are common sense areas I would not hire him. Putting a madman dictator at the helm of a Civil Rights commission is lunacy. How CAN I trust them in other areas? Great, they do telecom governance well. Blind squirrel. It's probably far more the great work of an isolated team than an example of U.N. supremacy.
What about the fact that Microsoft is flagrantly flexing it's monopoly power to force video card makers to play along? This is ALL the reason I need to avoid Vista and hope like hell they have non-Windows versions of these cards. What about the fact that your hardware will be polled for complaince every so many seconds? I think Steve Gibson got it perfectly right when he said they should have put the same effort into making Vista stable and safe. I disagree with him, however, when he says there are so many good things in Vista that it offsets this bad thing. The ends don't justify the means. This is really very simple, Microsoft is (as usual) taking a "lets go to the MPAA and RIAA to see what we need to be compliant first, then craft our product in a way that we can market it to the customer." Meanwhile, Apple and Linux are saying, "lets craft our product in a way customers want and then build compliance only where necessary." What do you want, folks? Top-down or bottom-up!?
I'll give you the ITU, but honestly know little about it. The rest of your comments are drivel and biased and therefore mean nothing. Oil for Food was a U.N. scandal. the US is not in ANY way at fault. Frankly, France should have had sanctions brought against them for their part. Peacekeeping? The U.N. has a far worse record. In fact, I challenge you to find a single successful peacekeeping mission by the U.N. Look,I'm not going to go line-by-line on U.N. failures. Their is enough for me (ME, maybe no you or anyone else...my tolerance for idiocy is lower than yours) to be thankful they have nothing to do with the Internet.
My point is simple: How can any organization who exhibits behavior like the Libya incident be considered competent at all? Furthermore, I submit that the U.N. isn't competent in any area. Think of all of the failures. Oil for Food. Countless "Peacekeeping Missions" gone awry. This is all moot because the U.S. will never let them have control.
When you put Libya on your Civil Rights commission, nuff said. The U.N. servers only one useful purpose: Having them meet on U.S. soil provides a convenient place to spy on them. Which I think is great!
Income inequality doesn't drive crime. It may attract it, in that rich people make tempting targets. Look, people, this idea that rich people deserve to be target because their rich is bullshit. The idea that the "system breeds contempt because some people are successful" is bullshit. Perpetrating this myth is to encourage the lazy.
Yes, if you're a socialist then it matters. I realize that many in this country (U.S.) use democracy to bring about socialism. They further use class-envy to stir up the populace. I don't like executives getting bonuses for leaving a company in the shitter, but it happens. I'm not prepared to cut down all the trees because maples are pissed.
Okay, just where does extending citizen rights to foreigners stop? I mean there in effect are no benefits to citizenship if there are no differences in "us and them." I see where these comments are going, Folks. One world, one government. I happen to disagree with it. I don't care what others think of my country and it's determination to defend itself. Doesn't matter. Rather than bitching, they can boycott our products, elect pols that enact anti-American policies, and the like. Sitting around pissing and moaning because I have the audacity to think America is allowed to extend rights to its citizens that are not extended to foreigners is, in a word, silly. Hey, there's that word again.
Hey, they're collecting the fingerprints of non-citizens. I got no problem with this. The repeated claims that this is eroding our rights is, in a word, silly.
Why not present the facts on their merit? So much of this entire thread has ventured into religion. The seething hatred against religion is understood among many here but there is plenty to be alarmed about in the article without getting into it. Just remember when those on the right start boycotting the Dixie Chics, it is essentially the same thing this guy was doing. Both are perfectly fine things to do, but just remember that.
It's called greed. They have a monopoly to preserve. Cooperation with other browsers is simply not part of the plan. You can argue that it shouldn't be and I'd agree. But neither should poisoning the water, which is essentially what they do.
Well if that's the way you felt you should have done a better job of pointing it out. My statement is in regards to the comment that such charities shouldn't turn a profit per se'. If they can use their wealth to create a money-giving machine why not? People piss and moan when a company makes money for investors to spend. Now one makes money to re-invest and give to those in need and you're still pissed? Okay, Grade A moron works for me.
This looks like another "lets connect the dots" piece. Perhaps it will draw attention to the problem and a definitive study can be done and a cleanup will follow. Pieces like this inevitably come off looking like their saying the Gate Foundation would be better off not existing at all. Always with the negative vibes. Hey, I'm not a Gate fan and certainly not a Windows flag-waver, but the Gates Foundation to me is the only positive thing I can see Bill doing. I'm all for it. As to the guy above who thinks charities should be losing money not making it, that is just idiotic.
At least the price point is within reach. I'm looking forward to it! Esp. all the hacks that are sure to come down the pipe! SSH to my server and get some work down from the crapper!
Slashdot Mirror
Um...since when is "peace of mind" a right?
I realize in today's society that being offended, uncomfortable, and such is considered evidence of a crime but only in the politically correct sense. It's still not right and not "a" right.
He'll never do the weather on the Weather Channel. Freak!
Yep. We're all making the assumptions that Global Warming isn't a natural cycle of change. What if, like a hoard of scientists believe (granted, not the "gods" most environmentalists want to agree with), it is a natural warming? Then our efforts to reverse this are a perversion. We, then, become what we claim we loath: someone negatively impacting the environment. But hey, we can sit back on our fat grant checks living la vita green.
I agree. After this, no one can defend Microsoft by saying, "Oh it's just good business." They've laid themselves out as the top-down software company and this typifies they. I agree, they're evil inherent. Like kicking puppies.
What's more frightening is that this guy has the balls to introduce the bill. Eventually, shit like this gets passed. Trans-fats anyone? Socialism. Fight it or be it.
My corporate editions validate fine. If they didn't there'd be far more workstations than mine not working.
We have to teach our kids that Windows is evil. And I mean inherently. Like kicking a puppy or midgets masturbating to Michael Bolton songs. Okay, it got lost there but you get my point!
"This is VistaMan, kids! If suspects you have pirated software he'll shut off your video card, cripple the OS, and send you a nastygram! If it turns out you really didn't you can have JUST enough OS back to send an email to Microsoft, plead your case, and get your expensive computer back!"
Of course, I meant to say intolerance but that was a nice retort. :) Look, I have no interest in their work in telecommunications. That's doesn't mean I can't competently make a comment about their debacles. As for how this isn't biased it's easy. This is not the same as not hiring someone who doesn't like my favorite singer. U.N. failures are basically illustrations of stupidity. If a prospective employee had all the credentials I needed but appeared to be a moron on what are common sense areas I would not hire him. Putting a madman dictator at the helm of a Civil Rights commission is lunacy. How CAN I trust them in other areas? Great, they do telecom governance well. Blind squirrel. It's probably far more the great work of an isolated team than an example of U.N. supremacy.
What about the fact that Microsoft is flagrantly flexing it's monopoly power to force video card makers to play along? This is ALL the reason I need to avoid Vista and hope like hell they have non-Windows versions of these cards. What about the fact that your hardware will be polled for complaince every so many seconds? I think Steve Gibson got it perfectly right when he said they should have put the same effort into making Vista stable and safe. I disagree with him, however, when he says there are so many good things in Vista that it offsets this bad thing. The ends don't justify the means. This is really very simple, Microsoft is (as usual) taking a "lets go to the MPAA and RIAA to see what we need to be compliant first, then craft our product in a way that we can market it to the customer." Meanwhile, Apple and Linux are saying, "lets craft our product in a way customers want and then build compliance only where necessary." What do you want, folks? Top-down or bottom-up!?
I'll give you the ITU, but honestly know little about it. The rest of your comments are drivel and biased and therefore mean nothing. Oil for Food was a U.N. scandal. the US is not in ANY way at fault. Frankly, France should have had sanctions brought against them for their part. Peacekeeping? The U.N. has a far worse record. In fact, I challenge you to find a single successful peacekeeping mission by the U.N. Look,I'm not going to go line-by-line on U.N. failures. Their is enough for me (ME, maybe no you or anyone else...my tolerance for idiocy is lower than yours) to be thankful they have nothing to do with the Internet.
Actually, that's not true. In times of war, countries routinely hold people without charging them.
My point is simple: How can any organization who exhibits behavior like the Libya incident be considered competent at all? Furthermore, I submit that the U.N. isn't competent in any area. Think of all of the failures. Oil for Food. Countless "Peacekeeping Missions" gone awry. This is all moot because the U.S. will never let them have control.
When you put Libya on your Civil Rights commission, nuff said. The U.N. servers only one useful purpose: Having them meet on U.S. soil provides a convenient place to spy on them. Which I think is great!
Income inequality doesn't drive crime. It may attract it, in that rich people make tempting targets. Look, people, this idea that rich people deserve to be target because their rich is bullshit. The idea that the "system breeds contempt because some people are successful" is bullshit. Perpetrating this myth is to encourage the lazy.
Yes, if you're a socialist then it matters. I realize that many in this country (U.S.) use democracy to bring about socialism. They further use class-envy to stir up the populace. I don't like executives getting bonuses for leaving a company in the shitter, but it happens. I'm not prepared to cut down all the trees because maples are pissed.
"some inalienable obvious rights of the people"
I agree. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying this proposal doesn't rise to that level to me.
Okay, just where does extending citizen rights to foreigners stop? I mean there in effect are no benefits to citizenship if there are no differences in "us and them." I see where these comments are going, Folks. One world, one government. I happen to disagree with it.
I don't care what others think of my country and it's determination to defend itself. Doesn't matter. Rather than bitching, they can boycott our products, elect pols that enact anti-American policies, and the like. Sitting around pissing and moaning because I have the audacity to think America is allowed to extend rights to its citizens that are not extended to foreigners is, in a word, silly. Hey, there's that word again.
Hey, they're collecting the fingerprints of non-citizens. I got no problem with this.
The repeated claims that this is eroding our rights is, in a word, silly.
Why not present the facts on their merit? So much of this entire thread has ventured into religion. The seething hatred against religion is understood among many here but there is plenty to be alarmed about in the article without getting into it.
Just remember when those on the right start boycotting the Dixie Chics, it is essentially the same thing this guy was doing. Both are perfectly fine things to do, but just remember that.
It's called greed. They have a monopoly to preserve. Cooperation with other browsers is simply not part of the plan. You can argue that it shouldn't be and I'd agree. But neither should poisoning the water, which is essentially what they do.
Well if that's the way you felt you should have done a better job of pointing it out. My statement is in regards to the comment that such charities shouldn't turn a profit per se'. If they can use their wealth to create a money-giving machine why not? People piss and moan when a company makes money for investors to spend. Now one makes money to re-invest and give to those in need and you're still pissed? Okay, Grade A moron works for me.
This looks like another "lets connect the dots" piece. Perhaps it will draw attention to the problem and a definitive study can be done and a cleanup will follow. Pieces like this inevitably come off looking like their saying the Gate Foundation would be better off not existing at all. Always with the negative vibes. Hey, I'm not a Gate fan and certainly not a Windows flag-waver, but the Gates Foundation to me is the only positive thing I can see Bill doing. I'm all for it.
As to the guy above who thinks charities should be losing money not making it, that is just idiotic.
At least the price point is within reach. I'm looking forward to it! Esp. all the hacks that are sure to come down the pipe! SSH to my server and get some work down from the crapper!
I say keep it real, Yo! ASCII FOREVER!