Oops, sorry about that. As a native French-speaker, I unconsciously made a direct translation of the french name ("arche d'alliance") into english. Of course you're correct, the correct english name is Ark of the Covenant - covenant being a synonym of alliance, in this case the alliance between God and humanity.
It was the spear of Longinus (which help the starved crusaders repels the Turks at Antioch) that would give victory to an army that marched behind it, not the Ark of the Alliance. But Spielberg probably felt that it was not as powerful a symbol for the movie, and so the Nazis went after that instead, and film history was made!
This hardware works with everything else. There is no reason it shouldn't work with OpenOffice. [...] Sure. Mandrake 8.1's installer works great. 8.2's installer hangs.
In both cases, before saying that it's a software bug, you should try it on different hardware. Have you tried to install it on a different computer? Mandrake 8.2's installer worked like a charm for me, as it did on my dad's and my girlfriend's PCs...OpenOffice works flawlessly as well. It seems to me you should research this problem a bit more before complaining that it's the software's fault, especially since there doesn't seem to be any outcry about it among users - this tends to validate the fact that your problem is "special". Did you contact Mandrake and OO.org about those problem? I'm sure they'd be happy to help you out, and possible add fixes to their products with the knowledge gained from your misfortunes.
So OpenOffice will be proclaimed "1.0" and we'll just slide on down the road, just like Windows. The fact is: It's too complicated.
Are you kidding? What is so complicated about executing a single file? How more simple could it be? Are you sure you're not just trolling here? Because, compared to most other Linux programs, the OpenOffice/StarOffice installer are a model of simplicity. Heck, they're even a lot simpler that installing MS Office!
Well, I tried it on stock Mandrake 8.1 and 8.2 installs.[...] As anyone except root, all programs segfault except setup. [...] (just like Mandrake, whose install doesn't work either) [...] OpenOffice 1.0: click click click segfault
[...] Mandrake 8.2: click click click hangs
Mmh...did you consider that this might be a hardware problem? I can assure you, Mandrake's installer (and OpenOffice's too) work quite well. I don't know, but it seems to me that something is wrong with your setup, either software or hardware, but definitely your situation is exceptional. It does not reflect my own experiences with those products, nor those of most Mandrake users I know/meet...What's your hardware platform (Motherboard, graphic card, memory, etc...)?
I'll repost this because the original poster is an AC, and therefore some people might miss it:
"The fonts are available at Sourceforge, the page author says that per the EULA this is OK, so all Codeweavers needs to do is adjust their download procedure to point to the new site."
...but Georgia is the serif font, and Verdana is the sans serif (the serif being to little line thingies at the top and bottom of the letters).
Anyway, this is bad news indeed - I believe it's aimed squarely at Codeweaver's Crossover programs, making them less usable by removing the possibility of downloading fonts. IANAL, but can't someone just take the original font, change it by a specified amount, and re-release it as a replacement font?
Dropping the Bomb on an uninhabited island while inviting a few generals to witness its effects would have probably achieved the same goal, and would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, among them many women, children, and elders. The U.S. deliberately targeted Japan's civilian population with a weapon of mass destruction, and still some people believe that this was the "only way to end the war"...well, we'll never know, will we, because that was the only option taken.
Whatever the japanese did to soldiers in POW camps was terrible, to say the least. But that cannot justify the slaughter of more than 210,000 people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki(that's 70 times the number of WTC victimes, and that doesn't even include those who died from radiation sickness). That was one of the most cowardly acts of war ever perpetrated by any modern nation (it would be a true terrorist action if it hadn't been done by the military), and should be denounced as such.
Dan Rather? What the hell are you talking about, you brainwashed moron? Do you think I waste my time with U.S. network news? Another thing, asshole (you had to insult me, now, didn't you?), if you think Germany and Japan have economic problems then perhaps you should take a trip through this great big world of ours. Just because they sometimes hit recessions or suffer from the economic woes that invariably affect industrialized nations doesn't take away from the fact that they are the #2 and #3 economic powers of the world. And that, after suffering a major military defeat 57 years ago.
Client countries would indeed include most of Central America, except for Nicaragua and Cuba, the two officially "socialist" countries. Note that, if it hadn't been for constant U.S. harassment/blockade (and an earthquake to boot, in the case of Nicaragua) these countries would have among the healthiest of economies. But all the other central american countries can be considered "client states" of the U.S. who is forcing them to adopt "free markets" by equating this concept with that of democracy (a fallacy, since you can have a free market in an otherwise autoritarian society). Implying that Honduras, Costa Rica or El Salvador are "socialist" reveals how little you know about that part of the world...
In any case, about the comparison between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the cold war, you'll notice that I did write "apart from individual liberties ", which covers the jeans situation. As far as natural resources are concerned, that's certainly true if you look at the two individual nations themselves, though if you include the resources of their client states, then it was probably pretty much the same.
Finally, when I say "everyone understood after 1929 that pure capitalism didn't work", I mean the governing elites of the industrialized nations, who since then have incorporated parts of the socialist model of govt. intervention in the economy, the U.S. being a champion of this. You may think that governments consistently screws things up (typical), but without that govt. and its development of the american economy through the Pentagon system, you wouldn't be typing your idiotic drivel on a PC to then post it on the Internet at all. Understand this before continuing this conversation, otherwise you're not worth my time.
You're right, the U.S. could be considered a socialist country, but not because of Social Security. Rather, it is its heavily-subsidized industries (military, aerospace, hi-tech, biotech, agriculture) that make it ressemble the socialist model...to a point. In fact, apart from individual liberties - including the fact that mom and pop could have a store - the U.S. of the cold war was strikingly similar to the U.S.S.R. It is safe to say that they were rivals (for oil, mostly) instead of enemies.
BTW, there are very few "capitalist" countries left in the world. After 1929, everyone pretty much understood that "pure" capitalism didn't work. So most industrialized countries now have mixed economies - the sad thing is that the U.S. forces its client nations to adopt the capitalist models and therefore become markets for american goods, even though it also ensures that their economy won't develop normally...
As a whole, Christianity has worked against violence, and not spreading it. It works as a code of ethics that prohibits man's natural impulsion toward violence.
Hmm...most major religions act as codes of ethics to control man's "impulses", be they violent or otherwise. The call of the divine aims at transcending humanity and therefore elevate man above beast. Unfortunately, religions have seldom had that effect in the real world. Nearly all of them have been used to justify some kind of atrocity or abuse at one time or another (well, Buddhism is mostly clean, and so is Jainism, I suppose...)
I suppose if you stick to the basic tenets of Christianity - or most religions, for that matter - then you would be doing more harm than good. But then you would probably have to dissociate yourself from whatever church you belong to and start your own...
Why do you think I have any intrest in elevating whatever absurd nonsense you feel like spouting into a subject worthy of debate?
I'll accept this as an admission of defeat then.
P.S. When someone calls someone else a facist in an online discussion, it almost invariably means that he's lost the debate. This is no exception. Before I leave you to your twisted world view, though, you should know that facist != communist. It's a well known fact that facism comes from the right, not the left. So calling me a leftist then a facist makes no sense. But then again, you wouldn't be the kind to shy away from saying that everyone is wrong, and you're right. A "facist" economic system would be something like the economic system of Nazi Germany or Facist Italy (where the word comes from, dickhead, before you decided to "hijack" it to suit your own meaning). It was definitely a capitalist system. You say that leftists want to "control" the economy, but in your anarcho-capitalist view (libertarian right) then the economy would end up being controlled by a few monopolies. Oh yeah, that's much better.
P.P.S. That bit about putting "rich" people in the same bag as blacks, as far as discrimination is concerned, and calling me a bigot...that's priceless! Maybe you should do stand-up comedy (seeing as how you utterly suck at political debate).
I know you don't want to admit it, but I'm a Libertarian Leftist, and you're an anarcho-capitalist. Who's just lost this debate. Adieu, mofo!
You can proclaim you are a god, but it won't make you one, the same holds for your attempt to hijack the word Libertarian.
Hey, you're the one who has the god complex, here, not me: IIRC you're the one who said he was "objective" - something which, as every philosophy teacher will tell you, is only an utopic goal for mere humans.
In the 19th Century the word "Liberal" ment someone who beleaved in freedom from state controls. In the 20th Century Statists hijacked the word for political purposes and are ready to toss it away now that Liberal dosen't confuse people anymore, and are trying to pull the same scam on the word "Libertarian" which was coined for the ideas that Liberal represented 100 years ago.
Yes, we have hijacked your precious word and we will kill it if you don't give us William F. Buckley, bound and gagged.
Give me a freakin' break! That word doesn't belong to anyone, much less a buch on laissez-faire fanatics who can't stand governments but don't seem to mind that we live in a dictatorship of the transnationals. You just don't like you oppressor to be elected - you want to be a rich boy's bitch instead, that's fine with me. But don't delude yourself if you think that word belongs to you. I'm a Libertarian Leftist, deal with it. I'm not trying to confuse anyone: I believe people are intelligent enough to judge me on what I say, not base the correctness of my discourse on what I call myself. Same for you, you call yourself an objectivist, when it's clear for anyone who reads your drivel that you're just another anarcho-capitalist, a Reaganoholic who's ready to let the whole world be guided by Milton's Invisible Hand - all the while history teaches us that unregulated markets are not self-correcting, and that they eventually crash.
As an aside, Webster's definition of Libertarian: 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
I don't see any reference to Adam Smith or any of the early liberal thinkers here. In fact I believe you are quite mistaken about the meaning of the word. It means a lot more than the narrow definition you would give it. Et cela est encore plus apparent dans d'autres langues que l'anglais; en français, le mot "libertaire" est en fait plus associé à la gauche qu'à la droite.
BTW your admission that yo use words to mean anything you want them to was a mistake. Now it's apparent that nothing you say is trustworthy
What the hell are you smoking? I did nothing of the sort - you interpreted something to that effect, I imagine. Which doesn't surprise me, my discourse being leagues above your pitiful excuse for a political paradigm. Ergo, as with all your previous posts, you don't actually challenge any of my arguments. None. Rather, you try to associate me with political philosophies I abhor, you insult me, you try to distort my words and you refuse to acknowledge simple facts. In other words you are a Troll. Thanks for wasting my time, Troll.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Your lack of arguments and tendency to rely on blatant distortions, prefab definitions and personal attacks show that you haven't really been doing this for long. I'd say, what 18? 20? You've still got a lot to learn about the world, son... Here, try these few Liberterian Leftist sites:
In the real world, a word's definition is derived from its general usage, not according to the desires of those, like you, who would hijack it (and accuse others of doing it when they want to revalidate the broader meaning of the word). It's quite obvious, looking at just these few web sites, that Libertarian is used both for the left and the right. So it seems that you have lost: the word is broadly recognized to describe both political options. But of course that's beyond your intellectual reach. Work on it, you'll get it eventually...I already know how you're going to respond to this, so I say to you: goodbye, Troll. I wish I could say this had been fun but you're just not up to task. Crawl back under your bridge and try to actually make a point instead of attacking your interlocutor. It might actually make other people take you seriously.
Funny you should be mentioning Orwell, since he was himself a Libertarian Leftist.
Needless to say, I disagree with your definition of Libertarian. Therefore it is no surprise that you cannot understand the basis of my political beliefs. But being on the left doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in a planned economy, just that you believe that the state should have a degree of intervening in economic matters. Like the U.S. now, with the Pentagon system of state subsidies to the military-related industries.
I'm not too stupid to see the contradiction, because it isn't there. You can have a socially free regime in which the state collects taxes and uses these taxes to help manage the economy. That is not the same as a planned economy, but it's not laissez-faire as well. On the other you are incapable of thinking in anything but black or white.
I also resent your attempts to steer the debate by trying to pigeonhole me as something I am not. For someone who is supposed to be "objective" you display a very narrow mind indeed.
As a Libertarian Leftist, I'm a reality that scares you because deep down you know it challenges your world view. So I'm not an oxymoron; you, on the other hand, are definitely a moron. So, as they say, let'S agree to disagree and get the fsck out of here.
Run away? Hah! Don't make me laugh...I've chewed on way better debaters than you. No, it's just that I value my time. And you started the name-calling, so don't be surprised if it comes back at you - though unlike you I'll actually supply it with real arguments. Bitch.
No an objectivist, but when you are on the extreme left everybody looks like a right winger
You, an objectivist? How pretentious can you get? You can't even formulate an half-assed argument and you present yourself as above it all...what a joke! Ok, let's be honest: your overt, irrational disdain of the left clearly marks you as from the right. Can't you at least acknowledge that?
In any case, I notice that you did not actually challenge my argument, which is typical. So, I'll conclude that you're agreeing with me, then: the american right is as statist as the left, except that they want the govt. to service corporations (through the Pentagon system, for instance) instead of citizens.
YOU associated yourself with the authoritarian regimes by mindlessly parroting their propaganda.
No, YOU associated me with them, and are doing so again by saying that I "mindlessly parrot their propaganda." If you can show me where I did such things, then we might have an intelligent discussion. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're simply trying to attack me because you can't actually challenge my arguments. I'm quite used to this, and it bores me.
10% of the population has fled Castro's "benign" regime, NO US backed regime ever had refugee rates that high.
Have you ever been to Cuba? If not, then don't you consider that you're really talking about something you don't know? Cuba is a lot less authoritarian regime than Chile was under Pinochet, or Indonesia under Suharto, or Nicaragua under Somoza. In fact, there have been no political executions in Cuba (though some dissidents have been jailed) while these have been common in US-backed Latin American states.
Power mad assholes was the subject before you embarked on generalized leftist ramblings.
Okay, by this point we have all figured out you can't actually come up with counter-arguments of your own, so you can drop the derisive tone - it's not working. Just to make it clear, the subject was putting money in health and education instead of the military. You came in and said if you don't put money in the military, then some power-mad asshole is going to come out (appear magically?) and conquer the U.S. My argument was that the world is now a complex place (more that you will ever be able to imagine, I now realize), and that we now have conflict management to lessen the risk of armed conflict. The fact of the matter is that the main agressor in the second part of the 20th century has been the United States. So the big military budgets aren't really to "defend the homeland" (we saw how much effective that was on 9/11), but rather to: a) subsidize the military industry and b) enforce's U.S. policy when sovereign governments refuse to "toe the line". All of your personal attacks, lies and misrepresentations won't change this fact.
Right-wingers bore me. If you want to believe that you've won the argument, then go ahead and parade. I really don't give a hoot. I have a party to prepare and I'm leaving on vacation in two days. I'd rather have you believe that you've won an argument (without actually having put forward any real arguments of your own) than fight with my girlfriend because I'm still on "that silly website!"
Yeah, you're an idiot. You're an idiot because, instead of trying to disprove someone's argument, you simply try to ridicule them (I say try, because you fail miserably). Case in point is calling someone a "Choamskyite" (making yet another spelling mistake). Sure, I've read Chomsky. I've also read Boudrieu, Petrella, and John R. Saul (who's now the consort to my Governor General...oh well, nobody's perfect!). I've also read Milton Friedman and laughed at his "invisible hand", which has no basis on scientific fact but his rather a profession of faith for capitalists wannabes. I read a lot. So, yeah, I'm a Libertarian Leftist - I took the test. So, we know what I am, and we know it threatens you and your black-and-white view of the world (hence your derisive but falsely confident reply). Now what are you, apart from an idiot? Can you actually formulate an argument, or are you only capable of...whatever nonsense it is that you write.
Well it's a Well known Secret that the Worthless Riches amassed by Poverty Stricken Billionaires on dark days is used to purchase Jumbo Shrimp!!! This proves the Socalist Capitalists are waging a Peaceful War against the Idle Workers.
Going over my head? Don't flatter yourself. I already understood that your extremely limited view of the world doesn't recognize the Libertarian Left as a possibility, and yet it is. Since I'm feeling generous today, I'll enlighten you: the Left/Right dichotomy mainly concerns itself with economic matters, i.e. laissez-faire economics vs. a planned economy. Of course, there are many degrees in between each extremes, but we'll leave it at that for now (I wouldn't want your head to explode). In addition to the economic aspect of politics, though, there is also a social dimension, represented by another axis, Authoritarian/Libertarian. Therefore, you can have a Libertarian/Right form of govt. (something a bit like the U.S. today, but with less govt.), Libertarian/Left (that's me), Authoritarian/Left (that would be the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, for example) and Authoritarian/Right (Nazi Germany is a good example). I disagree with all except my own, though I'm more strongly opposed to Authoritarian regimes than to the Right (even though I still am), something which was reflected in the test - you should take it, you might learn a thing or two about yourself.
There, you'll go to bed less of an idiot tonight. No need to thank me, I have absolutely no more time to lose with the likes of you. Goodbye.
Like the "reasonable compromise" that the UK and france reached with Hitler at Munich in 1938?
I'm not talking about appeasing fascist regimes, I'm talking about resolving differences between antagonists. Yes, historically there have been nations bent of subjugating the entire world (or at least the ones rich in natural resources). The notion of lebensraum still exists in a few conflicts - one could argue that some of the most right-wing elements in Israel have adopted this rather scary idea to justify the occupation of Palestine. And definitely the conflict between India and Pakistan is centered on land. But conflicts like the ones that became WWI and WWII cannot really exist in a world with nuclear weapons in it. That's, like, Strategic Warfare 101.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. What is a "reasonable compromise" with a gangster state that is out to destroy you? Let them take half your land? half of what's left a year or two later?
Exactly how did Castro ever try to destroy the US, or take half of its land? For that matter, I don't recall real tyrants (Castro's regime being a lot more benign than many other countries supported by the US, such as Colombia, Indonesia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, to name but a few) every trying to take half of the US - well, I guess Hitler would eventually have come to that point if he had gotten the bomb first. But Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Theses were tyrants, for sure, but they never actually attacked America. Engaged in proxy wars with it, sure. But the robber analogy is strenuous at best. In any case, these are not the regimes I was talking about, and either you know that and you're trying to divert attention away from U.S. atrocities (you know, the ones that are supposedly easier to avoid?), or you don't know the history of the second part of the 20th century well enough for us to continue debating all of this. So what is it?
I'm talking about statists who offer mealy mouthed excuses about why they need so much power, the majority of whom are currently members of the left.
"Statists?" My, you're a real right-winger, aren't you? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but the right is as "statist" as the left. How do you think the Pentagon economy functions? Generous defense contracts and expensive gadgets like the SDI are government subsidies by any other name. No, the right is as "statist" as the left, it's just that it prefers a government that services the multinationals rather than the general population.
So what you're saying, if I follow your analogy, is that George Bush's family, like Al Gore's, has benefited from dealing with tyrants? Well, it doesn't matter to me, since if I was a U.S. citizen I would have voted for Ralph Nader (hey, at least he's pro-Linux). But we could stand here all day and discuss who's the biggest monster and mass-murderer, Hitler or Stalin, and wouldn't change the fact that U.S. has done business with tyrants and continues to do so with complete impunity. Meanwhile, you haven't disproven any of my points, only tried to subvert my original argument with dubious analogies and hazardous insinuations that I somehow think leftists tyrants are okay. Of course that is preposterous: I am morally opposed to tyranny, whether it's coming from the left or the right. If you keep on with your half-assed attempts to ridicule my opinion and associate me with authoritarian doctrines, then all I can say is that you're just another one in dozens of morons which have come and gone, repeating the same stupid arguments and ending up making fools out of themselves.
I've had my share of pointless discussion, and this is definitely starting like one. Plus, your writing style sucks, which takes the fun out of a good political sparring session. Goodbye.
Ah, yes, the good old trick of trying to pigeonhole those who disagree with you. Of course, it works better if you don't actually make three severe spelling mistakes in the same sentence. Instead, it makes you look like a bit of an idiot. Since I don't like uneven matches, I'll simply state that, as a Libertarian Leftist, I'm opposed to authoritarian forms of government, be they communists, fascists, monarchists or simply brutal. So there. Now piss off.
Please give some examples about those government that actually "stole" from the US. All I hear from you is the same old right-wing propaganda, which is just a way to divert attention from the real-life abuses of democracy commited by the US over the past 50 years.
What did the government of Mossadeq do to the US that warranted a coup d'Etat in favor of a monarch and religious scholars? Ask yourlself what the "aggressors" of Nicaragua or El Salvador were "stealing" from the US. But when asserting your national sovereignty and standing up to multinationals based in the US becomes "picking fights with a superpower", I guess anything's possible...Or perhaps you don't consider proxy wars to count!
Don't bother answering, my time is too valuable to argue with right-wing bots who just repeat the trusted party line, who like to think they're capitalists when they're just being fscked by the system like everybody else. "Feudal warlords" may be less rational than robber barons, but who's eating away at my mutual funds now? One thing's for sure, it ain't OBL, it's Dubya's friends of yesterday, whom he must now chastise before business goes back to normal. Continue living in your black-and-white white, oversimplified world. It's no wonder you can't appreciate his contribution to conflict management!
I fail to see how the U.S. feeling "vindictive" against Germany or Japan has anything to do with what I was talking about. Up until the second World War the U.S. was actually a fairly good global citizen...(of course, workers were exploited and some of the big capitalists of the day, like Alan Dulles' brother or GWB's grandfather, did business with Nazi Germany). It's in the second half of the century that the U.S. started to prey on budding democracies, supporting its fair share of dictators and non-elected rulers (Peron in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Shah in Iran, Suharto in Indonesia, the House of Saud, and so on...)
The idea behind conflict management is to give the two sides a reason to achieve a reasonable compromise. That's why we have diplomats. Your analogy doesn't really apply to international politics, so I won't even try to address it (who's that robber you're talking about?). As far as people who consider power an end, I'm confused...are you talking about Dubya's entourage? No, the biggest problems with conflict management is that a) it isn't as exciting as smart bombs and hi-power lasers to armchair/desktop generals, and b) its not a very good way to pour more money into the military-industrial complex.
Well, one of the things we developed in the 20th century is conflict management (with some help from John Nash and his Equilibrium theory). The real goal should not be to scare enemies into submission, but rather make friends out of them. Anyway, a self-defence force doesn't require multi-billion lasers and satellites - right now the U.S. would be impossible to invade just because of all the guns.
Of course, the reason for all that war equipment is not to actually defend the U.S., but rather to enforce its will on governments that would dare go against its perceived national interests. As the only remaining superpower, the U.S. gets to call all the shot, and you'd be a fool to think that they'll use that power to promote democracy and the rule of law! Since the 1953 coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government, now known to have been orchestrated by the CIA (and incidentally helped Islamic fundamentalism become what it is today), history has showed us that the U.S. actually prefers dictatorship to democratic governments, especially in OPEC countries, as it makes for lower crude oil prices.
So now, the U.S. will have even more force at his disposal to ignore international laws and national sovereignties...great! [Sigh] I remember a time when american soldiers were not afraid to go into battle, mano a mano. Now they just bomb the crap out of the enemy - too bad if there are civilians among them - and soon they'll be able to blind them from above. Because the life of an american soldier is sacred, while that of a foreign one isn't worth shit. And you wonder why the rest of the world dislikes the U.S. govt. (Not actual americans, mind you - there's a difference.)
It is true that piracy can sometimes help sales...I remember reading an interview with one of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe's bigwig, who admitted that piracy had helped make the first PlayStation one of the most successful game consoles in history. I think that, if Hollywood and the record companies want to keep making money, they need to have added (non-virtual) value to their offerings. Case in point, the Memento special edition DVD. It looks too cool, I had to buy it...even if it was more expensive than the regular one. Same thing with the special edition "book" Kid A album by Radiohead. These are nice objects - you want to own them. Now compare this to a 15$ CD with no lyrics in a jewel case that breaks if you drop it...
I agree though that boneheaded statements will get us nowhere, and actually play into the MP/RIAA's hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, sorry about that. As a native French-speaker, I unconsciously made a direct translation of the french name ("arche d'alliance") into english. Of course you're correct, the correct english name is Ark of the Covenant - covenant being a synonym of alliance, in this case the alliance between God and humanity.
It was the spear of Longinus (which help the starved crusaders repels the Turks at Antioch) that would give victory to an army that marched behind it, not the Ark of the Alliance. But Spielberg probably felt that it was not as powerful a symbol for the movie, and so the Nazis went after that instead, and film history was made!
Oops! I know I should have previewed...damn italics tag!
This hardware works with everything else. There is no reason it shouldn't work with OpenOffice.
[...]
Sure. Mandrake 8.1's installer works great. 8.2's installer hangs.
In both cases, before saying that it's a software bug, you should try it on different hardware. Have you tried to install it on a different computer? Mandrake 8.2's installer worked like a charm for me, as it did on my dad's and my girlfriend's PCs...OpenOffice works flawlessly as well. It seems to me you should research this problem a bit more before complaining that it's the software's fault, especially since there doesn't seem to be any outcry about it among users - this tends to validate the fact that your problem is "special". Did you contact Mandrake and OO.org about those problem? I'm sure they'd be happy to help you out, and possible add fixes to their products with the knowledge gained from your misfortunes.
So OpenOffice will be proclaimed "1.0" and we'll just slide on down the road, just like Windows. The fact is: It's too complicated.
Are you kidding? What is so complicated about executing a single file? How more simple could it be? Are you sure you're not just trolling here? Because, compared to most other Linux programs, the OpenOffice/StarOffice installer are a model of simplicity. Heck, they're even a lot simpler that installing MS Office!
Well, I tried it on stock Mandrake 8.1 and 8.2 installs.[...] As anyone except root, all programs segfault except setup. [...] (just like Mandrake, whose install doesn't work either) [...] OpenOffice 1.0: click click click segfault [...] Mandrake 8.2: click click click hangs
Mmh...did you consider that this might be a hardware problem? I can assure you, Mandrake's installer (and OpenOffice's too) work quite well. I don't know, but it seems to me that something is wrong with your setup, either software or hardware, but definitely your situation is exceptional. It does not reflect my own experiences with those products, nor those of most Mandrake users I know/meet...What's your hardware platform (Motherboard, graphic card, memory, etc...)?
I'll repost this because the original poster is an AC, and therefore some people might miss it:
"The fonts are available at Sourceforge, the page author says that per the EULA this is OK, so all Codeweavers needs to do is adjust their download procedure to point to the new site."
Cool!
...but Georgia is the serif font, and Verdana is the sans serif (the serif being to little line thingies at the top and bottom of the letters).
Anyway, this is bad news indeed - I believe it's aimed squarely at Codeweaver's Crossover programs, making them less usable by removing the possibility of downloading fonts. IANAL, but can't someone just take the original font, change it by a specified amount, and re-release it as a replacement font?
Dropping the Bomb on an uninhabited island while inviting a few generals to witness its effects would have probably achieved the same goal, and would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, among them many women, children, and elders. The U.S. deliberately targeted Japan's civilian population with a weapon of mass destruction, and still some people believe that this was the "only way to end the war"...well, we'll never know, will we, because that was the only option taken.
Whatever the japanese did to soldiers in POW camps was terrible, to say the least. But that cannot justify the slaughter of more than 210,000 people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki(that's 70 times the number of WTC victimes, and that doesn't even include those who died from radiation sickness). That was one of the most cowardly acts of war ever perpetrated by any modern nation (it would be a true terrorist action if it hadn't been done by the military), and should be denounced as such.
Dan Rather? What the hell are you talking about, you brainwashed moron? Do you think I waste my time with U.S. network news? Another thing, asshole (you had to insult me, now, didn't you?), if you think Germany and Japan have economic problems then perhaps you should take a trip through this great big world of ours. Just because they sometimes hit recessions or suffer from the economic woes that invariably affect industrialized nations doesn't take away from the fact that they are the #2 and #3 economic powers of the world. And that, after suffering a major military defeat 57 years ago.
Client countries would indeed include most of Central America, except for Nicaragua and Cuba, the two officially "socialist" countries. Note that, if it hadn't been for constant U.S. harassment/blockade (and an earthquake to boot, in the case of Nicaragua) these countries would have among the healthiest of economies. But all the other central american countries can be considered "client states" of the U.S. who is forcing them to adopt "free markets" by equating this concept with that of democracy (a fallacy, since you can have a free market in an otherwise autoritarian society). Implying that Honduras, Costa Rica or El Salvador are "socialist" reveals how little you know about that part of the world...
In any case, about the comparison between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the cold war, you'll notice that I did write "apart from individual liberties ", which covers the jeans situation. As far as natural resources are concerned, that's certainly true if you look at the two individual nations themselves, though if you include the resources of their client states, then it was probably pretty much the same.
Finally, when I say "everyone understood after 1929 that pure capitalism didn't work", I mean the governing elites of the industrialized nations, who since then have incorporated parts of the socialist model of govt. intervention in the economy, the U.S. being a champion of this. You may think that governments consistently screws things up (typical), but without that govt. and its development of the american economy through the Pentagon system, you wouldn't be typing your idiotic drivel on a PC to then post it on the Internet at all. Understand this before continuing this conversation, otherwise you're not worth my time.
Dickhead.
You're right, the U.S. could be considered a socialist country, but not because of Social Security. Rather, it is its heavily-subsidized industries (military, aerospace, hi-tech, biotech, agriculture) that make it ressemble the socialist model...to a point. In fact, apart from individual liberties - including the fact that mom and pop could have a store - the U.S. of the cold war was strikingly similar to the U.S.S.R. It is safe to say that they were rivals (for oil, mostly) instead of enemies.
BTW, there are very few "capitalist" countries left in the world. After 1929, everyone pretty much understood that "pure" capitalism didn't work. So most industrialized countries now have mixed economies - the sad thing is that the U.S. forces its client nations to adopt the capitalist models and therefore become markets for american goods, even though it also ensures that their economy won't develop normally...
As a whole, Christianity has worked against violence, and not spreading it. It works as a code of ethics that prohibits man's natural impulsion toward violence.
Hmm...most major religions act as codes of ethics to control man's "impulses", be they violent or otherwise. The call of the divine aims at transcending humanity and therefore elevate man above beast. Unfortunately, religions have seldom had that effect in the real world. Nearly all of them have been used to justify some kind of atrocity or abuse at one time or another (well, Buddhism is mostly clean, and so is Jainism, I suppose...)
I suppose if you stick to the basic tenets of Christianity - or most religions, for that matter - then you would be doing more harm than good. But then you would probably have to dissociate yourself from whatever church you belong to and start your own...
Why do you think I have any intrest in elevating whatever absurd nonsense you feel like spouting into a subject worthy of debate?
I'll accept this as an admission of defeat then.
P.S. When someone calls someone else a facist in an online discussion, it almost invariably means that he's lost the debate. This is no exception. Before I leave you to your twisted world view, though, you should know that facist != communist. It's a well known fact that facism comes from the right, not the left. So calling me a leftist then a facist makes no sense. But then again, you wouldn't be the kind to shy away from saying that everyone is wrong, and you're right. A "facist" economic system would be something like the economic system of Nazi Germany or Facist Italy (where the word comes from, dickhead, before you decided to "hijack" it to suit your own meaning). It was definitely a capitalist system. You say that leftists want to "control" the economy, but in your anarcho-capitalist view (libertarian right) then the economy would end up being controlled by a few monopolies. Oh yeah, that's much better.
P.P.S. That bit about putting "rich" people in the same bag as blacks, as far as discrimination is concerned, and calling me a bigot...that's priceless! Maybe you should do stand-up comedy (seeing as how you utterly suck at political debate).
I know you don't want to admit it, but I'm a Libertarian Leftist, and you're an anarcho-capitalist. Who's just lost this debate. Adieu, mofo!
You can proclaim you are a god, but it won't make you one, the same holds for your attempt to hijack the word Libertarian.
Hey, you're the one who has the god complex, here, not me: IIRC you're the one who said he was "objective" - something which, as every philosophy teacher will tell you, is only an utopic goal for mere humans.
In the 19th Century the word "Liberal" ment someone who beleaved in freedom from state controls. In the 20th Century Statists hijacked the word for political purposes and are ready to toss it away now that Liberal dosen't confuse people anymore, and are trying to pull the same scam on the word "Libertarian" which was coined for the ideas that Liberal represented 100 years ago.
Yes, we have hijacked your precious word and we will kill it if you don't give us William F. Buckley, bound and gagged.
Give me a freakin' break! That word doesn't belong to anyone, much less a buch on laissez-faire fanatics who can't stand governments but don't seem to mind that we live in a dictatorship of the transnationals. You just don't like you oppressor to be elected - you want to be a rich boy's bitch instead, that's fine with me. But don't delude yourself if you think that word belongs to you. I'm a Libertarian Leftist, deal with it. I'm not trying to confuse anyone: I believe people are intelligent enough to judge me on what I say, not base the correctness of my discourse on what I call myself. Same for you, you call yourself an objectivist, when it's clear for anyone who reads your drivel that you're just another anarcho-capitalist, a Reaganoholic who's ready to let the whole world be guided by Milton's Invisible Hand - all the while history teaches us that unregulated markets are not self-correcting, and that they eventually crash.
As an aside, Webster's definition of Libertarian:
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
I don't see any reference to Adam Smith or any of the early liberal thinkers here. In fact I believe you are quite mistaken about the meaning of the word. It means a lot more than the narrow definition you would give it. Et cela est encore plus apparent dans d'autres langues que l'anglais; en français, le mot "libertaire" est en fait plus associé à la gauche qu'à la droite.
BTW your admission that yo use words to mean anything you want them to was a mistake. Now it's apparent that nothing you say is trustworthy
What the hell are you smoking? I did nothing of the sort - you interpreted something to that effect, I imagine. Which doesn't surprise me, my discourse being leagues above your pitiful excuse for a political paradigm. Ergo, as with all your previous posts, you don't actually challenge any of my arguments. None. Rather, you try to associate me with political philosophies I abhor, you insult me, you try to distort my words and you refuse to acknowledge simple facts. In other words you are a Troll. Thanks for wasting my time, Troll.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? Your lack of arguments and tendency to rely on blatant distortions, prefab definitions and personal attacks show that you haven't really been doing this for long. I'd say, what 18? 20? You've still got a lot to learn about the world, son... Here, try these few Liberterian Leftist sites:
Movement of the Libertarian Left
A People's Libertarian Index
Critiques of Libertarianism
In the real world, a word's definition is derived from its general usage, not according to the desires of those, like you, who would hijack it (and accuse others of doing it when they want to revalidate the broader meaning of the word). It's quite obvious, looking at just these few web sites, that Libertarian is used both for the left and the right. So it seems that you have lost: the word is broadly recognized to describe both political options. But of course that's beyond your intellectual reach. Work on it, you'll get it eventually...I already know how you're going to respond to this, so I say to you: goodbye, Troll. I wish I could say this had been fun but you're just not up to task. Crawl back under your bridge and try to actually make a point instead of attacking your interlocutor. It might actually make other people take you seriously.
Funny you should be mentioning Orwell, since he was himself a Libertarian Leftist.
Needless to say, I disagree with your definition of Libertarian. Therefore it is no surprise that you cannot understand the basis of my political beliefs. But being on the left doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in a planned economy, just that you believe that the state should have a degree of intervening in economic matters. Like the U.S. now, with the Pentagon system of state subsidies to the military-related industries.
I'm not too stupid to see the contradiction, because it isn't there. You can have a socially free regime in which the state collects taxes and uses these taxes to help manage the economy. That is not the same as a planned economy, but it's not laissez-faire as well. On the other you are incapable of thinking in anything but black or white.
I also resent your attempts to steer the debate by trying to pigeonhole me as something I am not. For someone who is supposed to be "objective" you display a very narrow mind indeed.
As a Libertarian Leftist, I'm a reality that scares you because deep down you know it challenges your world view. So I'm not an oxymoron; you, on the other hand, are definitely a moron. So, as they say, let'S agree to disagree and get the fsck out of here.
Run away? Hah! Don't make me laugh...I've chewed on way better debaters than you. No, it's just that I value my time. And you started the name-calling, so don't be surprised if it comes back at you - though unlike you I'll actually supply it with real arguments. Bitch.
No an objectivist, but when you are on the extreme left everybody looks like a right winger
You, an objectivist? How pretentious can you get? You can't even formulate an half-assed argument and you present yourself as above it all...what a joke! Ok, let's be honest: your overt, irrational disdain of the left clearly marks you as from the right. Can't you at least acknowledge that?
In any case, I notice that you did not actually challenge my argument, which is typical. So, I'll conclude that you're agreeing with me, then: the american right is as statist as the left, except that they want the govt. to service corporations (through the Pentagon system, for instance) instead of citizens.
YOU associated yourself with the authoritarian regimes by mindlessly parroting their propaganda.
No, YOU associated me with them, and are doing so again by saying that I "mindlessly parrot their propaganda." If you can show me where I did such things, then we might have an intelligent discussion. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're simply trying to attack me because you can't actually challenge my arguments. I'm quite used to this, and it bores me.
10% of the population has fled Castro's "benign" regime, NO US backed regime ever had refugee rates that high.
Have you ever been to Cuba? If not, then don't you consider that you're really talking about something you don't know? Cuba is a lot less authoritarian regime than Chile was under Pinochet, or Indonesia under Suharto, or Nicaragua under Somoza. In fact, there have been no political executions in Cuba (though some dissidents have been jailed) while these have been common in US-backed Latin American states.
Power mad assholes was the subject before you embarked on generalized leftist ramblings.
Okay, by this point we have all figured out you can't actually come up with counter-arguments of your own, so you can drop the derisive tone - it's not working. Just to make it clear, the subject was putting money in health and education instead of the military. You came in and said if you don't put money in the military, then some power-mad asshole is going to come out (appear magically?) and conquer the U.S. My argument was that the world is now a complex place (more that you will ever be able to imagine, I now realize), and that we now have conflict management to lessen the risk of armed conflict. The fact of the matter is that the main agressor in the second part of the 20th century has been the United States. So the big military budgets aren't really to "defend the homeland" (we saw how much effective that was on 9/11), but rather to: a) subsidize the military industry and b) enforce's U.S. policy when sovereign governments refuse to "toe the line". All of your personal attacks, lies and misrepresentations won't change this fact.
Right-wingers bore me. If you want to believe that you've won the argument, then go ahead and parade. I really don't give a hoot. I have a party to prepare and I'm leaving on vacation in two days. I'd rather have you believe that you've won an argument (without actually having put forward any real arguments of your own) than fight with my girlfriend because I'm still on "that silly website!"
Yeah, you're an idiot. You're an idiot because, instead of trying to disprove someone's argument, you simply try to ridicule them (I say try, because you fail miserably). Case in point is calling someone a "Choamskyite" (making yet another spelling mistake). Sure, I've read Chomsky. I've also read Boudrieu, Petrella, and John R. Saul (who's now the consort to my Governor General...oh well, nobody's perfect!). I've also read Milton Friedman and laughed at his "invisible hand", which has no basis on scientific fact but his rather a profession of faith for capitalists wannabes. I read a lot. So, yeah, I'm a Libertarian Leftist - I took the test. So, we know what I am, and we know it threatens you and your black-and-white view of the world (hence your derisive but falsely confident reply). Now what are you, apart from an idiot? Can you actually formulate an argument, or are you only capable of...whatever nonsense it is that you write.
Well it's a Well known Secret that the Worthless Riches amassed by Poverty Stricken Billionaires on dark days is used to purchase Jumbo Shrimp!!! This proves the Socalist Capitalists are waging a Peaceful War against the Idle Workers.
Going over my head? Don't flatter yourself. I already understood that your extremely limited view of the world doesn't recognize the Libertarian Left as a possibility, and yet it is. Since I'm feeling generous today, I'll enlighten you: the Left/Right dichotomy mainly concerns itself with economic matters, i.e. laissez-faire economics vs. a planned economy. Of course, there are many degrees in between each extremes, but we'll leave it at that for now (I wouldn't want your head to explode). In addition to the economic aspect of politics, though, there is also a social dimension, represented by another axis, Authoritarian/Libertarian. Therefore, you can have a Libertarian/Right form of govt. (something a bit like the U.S. today, but with less govt.), Libertarian/Left (that's me), Authoritarian/Left (that would be the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, for example) and Authoritarian/Right (Nazi Germany is a good example). I disagree with all except my own, though I'm more strongly opposed to Authoritarian regimes than to the Right (even though I still am), something which was reflected in the test - you should take it, you might learn a thing or two about yourself.
There, you'll go to bed less of an idiot tonight. No need to thank me, I have absolutely no more time to lose with the likes of you. Goodbye.
Like the "reasonable compromise" that the UK and france reached with Hitler at Munich in 1938?
I'm not talking about appeasing fascist regimes, I'm talking about resolving differences between antagonists. Yes, historically there have been nations bent of subjugating the entire world (or at least the ones rich in natural resources). The notion of lebensraum still exists in a few conflicts - one could argue that some of the most right-wing elements in Israel have adopted this rather scary idea to justify the occupation of Palestine. And definitely the conflict between India and Pakistan is centered on land. But conflicts like the ones that became WWI and WWII cannot really exist in a world with nuclear weapons in it. That's, like, Strategic Warfare 101.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. What is a "reasonable compromise" with a gangster state that is out to destroy you? Let them take half your land? half of what's left a year or two later?
Exactly how did Castro ever try to destroy the US, or take half of its land? For that matter, I don't recall real tyrants (Castro's regime being a lot more benign than many other countries supported by the US, such as Colombia, Indonesia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, to name but a few) every trying to take half of the US - well, I guess Hitler would eventually have come to that point if he had gotten the bomb first. But Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Theses were tyrants, for sure, but they never actually attacked America. Engaged in proxy wars with it, sure. But the robber analogy is strenuous at best. In any case, these are not the regimes I was talking about, and either you know that and you're trying to divert attention away from U.S. atrocities (you know, the ones that are supposedly easier to avoid?), or you don't know the history of the second part of the 20th century well enough for us to continue debating all of this. So what is it?
I'm talking about statists who offer mealy mouthed excuses about why they need so much power, the majority of whom are currently members of the left.
"Statists?" My, you're a real right-winger, aren't you? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but the right is as "statist" as the left. How do you think the Pentagon economy functions? Generous defense contracts and expensive gadgets like the SDI are government subsidies by any other name. No, the right is as "statist" as the left, it's just that it prefers a government that services the multinationals rather than the general population.
So what you're saying, if I follow your analogy, is that George Bush's family, like Al Gore's, has benefited from dealing with tyrants? Well, it doesn't matter to me, since if I was a U.S. citizen I would have voted for Ralph Nader (hey, at least he's pro-Linux). But we could stand here all day and discuss who's the biggest monster and mass-murderer, Hitler or Stalin, and wouldn't change the fact that U.S. has done business with tyrants and continues to do so with complete impunity. Meanwhile, you haven't disproven any of my points, only tried to subvert my original argument with dubious analogies and hazardous insinuations that I somehow think leftists tyrants are okay. Of course that is preposterous: I am morally opposed to tyranny, whether it's coming from the left or the right. If you keep on with your half-assed attempts to ridicule my opinion and associate me with authoritarian doctrines, then all I can say is that you're just another one in dozens of morons which have come and gone, repeating the same stupid arguments and ending up making fools out of themselves.
I've had my share of pointless discussion, and this is definitely starting like one. Plus, your writing style sucks, which takes the fun out of a good political sparring session. Goodbye.
Ah, yes, the good old trick of trying to pigeonhole those who disagree with you. Of course, it works better if you don't actually make three severe spelling mistakes in the same sentence. Instead, it makes you look like a bit of an idiot. Since I don't like uneven matches, I'll simply state that, as a Libertarian Leftist, I'm opposed to authoritarian forms of government, be they communists, fascists, monarchists or simply brutal. So there. Now piss off.
Please give some examples about those government that actually "stole" from the US. All I hear from you is the same old right-wing propaganda, which is just a way to divert attention from the real-life abuses of democracy commited by the US over the past 50 years.
What did the government of Mossadeq do to the US that warranted a coup d'Etat in favor of a monarch and religious scholars? Ask yourlself what the "aggressors" of Nicaragua or El Salvador were "stealing" from the US. But when asserting your national sovereignty and standing up to multinationals based in the US becomes "picking fights with a superpower", I guess anything's possible...Or perhaps you don't consider proxy wars to count!
Don't bother answering, my time is too valuable to argue with right-wing bots who just repeat the trusted party line, who like to think they're capitalists when they're just being fscked by the system like everybody else. "Feudal warlords" may be less rational than robber barons, but who's eating away at my mutual funds now? One thing's for sure, it ain't OBL, it's Dubya's friends of yesterday, whom he must now chastise before business goes back to normal. Continue living in your black-and-white white, oversimplified world. It's no wonder you can't appreciate his contribution to conflict management!
I fail to see how the U.S. feeling "vindictive" against Germany or Japan has anything to do with what I was talking about. Up until the second World War the U.S. was actually a fairly good global citizen...(of course, workers were exploited and some of the big capitalists of the day, like Alan Dulles' brother or GWB's grandfather, did business with Nazi Germany). It's in the second half of the century that the U.S. started to prey on budding democracies, supporting its fair share of dictators and non-elected rulers (Peron in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Shah in Iran, Suharto in Indonesia, the House of Saud, and so on...)
The idea behind conflict management is to give the two sides a reason to achieve a reasonable compromise. That's why we have diplomats. Your analogy doesn't really apply to international politics, so I won't even try to address it (who's that robber you're talking about?). As far as people who consider power an end, I'm confused...are you talking about Dubya's entourage? No, the biggest problems with conflict management is that a) it isn't as exciting as smart bombs and hi-power lasers to armchair/desktop generals, and b) its not a very good way to pour more money into the military-industrial complex.
Oops, sorry, I didn't realize you're not working there anymore. Oh well, good for you.
Well, you can tell him that Apache now has a larger market share than IIS...
Well, one of the things we developed in the 20th century is conflict management (with some help from John Nash and his Equilibrium theory). The real goal should not be to scare enemies into submission, but rather make friends out of them. Anyway, a self-defence force doesn't require multi-billion lasers and satellites - right now the U.S. would be impossible to invade just because of all the guns.
Of course, the reason for all that war equipment is not to actually defend the U.S., but rather to enforce its will on governments that would dare go against its perceived national interests. As the only remaining superpower, the U.S. gets to call all the shot, and you'd be a fool to think that they'll use that power to promote democracy and the rule of law! Since the 1953 coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government, now known to have been orchestrated by the CIA (and incidentally helped Islamic fundamentalism become what it is today), history has showed us that the U.S. actually prefers dictatorship to democratic governments, especially in OPEC countries, as it makes for lower crude oil prices.
So now, the U.S. will have even more force at his disposal to ignore international laws and national sovereignties...great! [Sigh] I remember a time when american soldiers were not afraid to go into battle, mano a mano. Now they just bomb the crap out of the enemy - too bad if there are civilians among them - and soon they'll be able to blind them from above. Because the life of an american soldier is sacred, while that of a foreign one isn't worth shit. And you wonder why the rest of the world dislikes the U.S. govt. (Not actual americans, mind you - there's a difference.)
Is there a way to find out? I know it's still early, but I just want to find out if I should be excited about Mdk9.0 yet...
It is true that piracy can sometimes help sales...I remember reading an interview with one of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe's bigwig, who admitted that piracy had helped make the first PlayStation one of the most successful game consoles in history. I think that, if Hollywood and the record companies want to keep making money, they need to have added (non-virtual) value to their offerings. Case in point, the Memento special edition DVD. It looks too cool, I had to buy it...even if it was more expensive than the regular one. Same thing with the special edition "book" Kid A album by Radiohead. These are nice objects - you want to own them. Now compare this to a 15$ CD with no lyrics in a jewel case that breaks if you drop it...
I agree though that boneheaded statements will get us nowhere, and actually play into the MP/RIAA's hands.