So, you're saying that you should be able to get a full and complete understanding of a technical system solution from a Slashdot article blurb without doing any research of your own or without reading any of the links?
Not at all. Unfortunately, there isn't even the vaguest hint of what NX is from the article -- personally, I thought it was a Needle eXchange. But I decided to Google it to check.
I'm glad I did though, because otherwise I'd never have known they were incorporating some new lesbian porn server into forthcoming linux distros.
I don't use Linux. I've had it pounded into my head that it's difficult to use, and it's buggy, and so on and so forth.
I am not a geek. Not really. I've owned and used computers for twenty years or more, but I don't work with them and I couldn't write a program to save my life.
However, I've been using Linux since MkLinux came out on Macs. Seven or eight years? When it really *was* difficult and buggy (compared with Linux on PC's anyway). Before kernel 2.0 came out.
And you know what? It wasn't *that* difficult. But you did have to read the docs. It wasn't that buggy either -- though there were a few more devices that didn't have drivers written yet than there are today.
Essentially, I'm scared to use it.
That has to be about temperament rather than about ease of use. Do you like to learn? If so, you'll learn more about how computers and networks and the internet work in a month of using Linux, than you will in ten years of using Windows.
But back in those days, you did have to like to learn. It's not like that any more though. A modern distro like SuSe or Mandrake is just as easy to install and use as Windows. And the learning isn't obligatory any more.
The truth is, I'd LOVE to use it. I'd love to have a friend say "see how easy this is? See how stable this is?" I'd love to have it installed on a box here and tinker with it after someone showed me the basics.
You can do it yourself. I did. It's really easy. Download a distro and start installing.
Perhaps that's because, with all the tacos you eat, you can't actually get a t-shirt that fits you?
I also figure, if you don't want a taco already, you especially don't want to hear me tout the virtues of spicy hot julienne strips of steak or chicken and fresh picante sauce covered in cheddar cheese
On the contrary. If we were eating somewhere and the fajitas were mediocre, but you knew that the tacos were to die for, I'd very much hope that you *did* inform me of that fact. Not only would you be doing me a favour, but you'd be doing a favour to the restaurant as well, because it's only via customer feedback (ie, sales of tacos increase as fajitas fall through the floor) that their business will ever improve.
It just seems to me that pimping a product without getting paid for it is a lot of work for no actualized returns returns
So does that mean that Microsoft paid you to write that post?
Only for sex. For everything else, it is called "employment."
In my experience, employees tend to slag me off and do whatever they can to sabotage me. The only people I've ever known who was prepared to fawn over me and slag off my enemies like that were also blowing me at the time.
Uncle Karl was confusing Mercatilism with Capitalism
I'm sure if he had been alive, he'd have been very grateful for the correction -- not! Perhaps you might also want to look up the definition of Mercantilism
you also need to read Adam Smith to get the real feel for the ideal form of capitalism, which actually has very few workers and hundreds, sometimes thousands, of owners in any given industry
I have. As had Karl Marx, and far more assiduously than I ever bothered to. In fact, Smith's work is at least as big an influence on Marx as that of Hegel -- and I believe more so.
What Marx does in Das Kapital (and many of his other works) is to build on Smith and describe the essential features of capitalism. Not some ideal type that never existed, but the real social, economic and political phenomenon that governed the lives of men. While his political and historical predictions may have been all to cock, his analysis of capitalism and how it works was bang on the nail -- whether you agree with his assertions about the implications of that or not.
But love of liberty has been ingrained and enshrined in the American character and laws for over 200 years.
Two hundred years, huh? And when was it that you repealed the laws on slavery exactly?
No one else except perhaps Britain can match that
Nah, we learned everything we need to know about freedom from the USA. Really. We'd still be in mud huts if it wasn't for the American people bringing us freedom and civilization.
true capitalism and true communism are very similar, under both you own only what you need to survive and no more
Um, Mr. Marxist Hacker?
I believe that you need to spend a little more time reading the works of Uncle Karl, and a little less on hacking. According to Marx, the very basis of capitalism is the ability of the capitalists to extract surplus value from their workers. That is *not* what they need to survive and no more -- unless you consider millions in the bank to be what everybody needs to survive.
According to their website, this organization is "the largest regional security organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Asia, Central and North America."
Seems to me therefore, that it would be just as accurate for this story to have been written 'US Federal Government pushes to limit internet speech'.
I don't see the expense figures for crack/weed listed there
That would be this bit:
"we also incurred significant expenses for the impairment of goodwill and intangibles"
We're talking about some serious impairment going on here -- over a million pounds worth of impairment, in fact -- and it's had a seriously negative impact on their goodwill with everyone except their drug dealer.
What did you expect? He had to go somewhere, and there's no spare cash in Microsoft's coffers because they're still paying Bush back for favours in respect of the monopoly lawsuit.
As this link shows That despite the wishes of a puritan nut to use the obscene publications acts law to prosecute John Lennon and Yoko for painting pictures of themselves having sex. They couldn't use it to prosecute art as it would set a bad precedent, for sure the law needs a change but it was already ineffective 30 years ago against true art.
We were talking about pornography, not 'true art' whatever that may be. However, the Obscene Publications Act is still on the statutes.
What's more, it isn't the only tack that the wingnuts can take in these circumstances. There's also this one, for example:
1977 isn't that long ago. It's the year of the Sex Pistols. Anyway, my point is that these laws are still on the statutes, and as such if the powers that be so wished, they could bring a prosecution and it would be up to you to defend it. The human rights granted under the European legislation give you a defence against these charges, but it's something of a stretch to say that all pornography between consenting adults is 'legal' in the UK.
Child porn is (...) used to justify all kinds of restricstions on freedom.
Really? What freedoms have we lost as a result of child pornography?
There's the freedom to own and possess such materials, and then there's.... um?
FWIW, I don't buy the progression argument. I don't think that looking at pictures of kiddy porn is likely to make you want or not want to have sex with kids.
I think it's a wiring thing, basically. Some people just have brains that are tell them they want to do it with men. Others have brains that tell them they want to do it with kids. While it *may* be possible to reprogramme the brain (via behaviour modification programmes)_ on an issue as fundamental as this, it's a very unreliable and haphazard thing to attempt. Familiarize yourself with the story of the Reimer twins sometime:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101678
So I'm perfectly happy with people being able to exchange cartoon images, drawn images, computer generated images, etc. of anything that they want to look at.
However, almost every single piece of child pornography is a piece of evidence that was witness to one of the most serious crimes on the statute. Not only do I think that the police *should* be preventing distribution of this material, they should alsi be pursuing the creators with all of the resources at their disposal.
Yes, it is - if you are a supplier of this stuff, it means lots more profits
Actually, there's very little commercial trade in kiddy porn these days. It's far too easy to make money from regular porn to risk your income on something you'll inevitably go to prison for.
Kiddy porn tends to be home made by child abusers, and traded by other afficionados.
Rape is rape, weather a woman, man or child says "No", the problem is that no believes that a child can say "Yes", can be sexual or can have pleasure from sexual experiences.
Oh, I absolutely believe that. As a child, I had consensual sexual experiences, and I had pleasure from those experiences.
However, I had them with other children my own age.
In contrast, the many, many people that I know who had sexual relations with adults as children all feel extremely angry about the fact that they were either coerced or exploited.
The power differential caused by the difference in ages between adults and children means that sex between these two is almost always inherently exploitative -- and even in the tiny number of cases when I'd concede that it isn't, it's still illegal in order to protect kids in the very many circumstances when it would be.
Either you're a child pornographer (pornographee? A person who looks at kiddie porn), or you're a cop/lawyer/judge.
Um. None of the above. 'Having seen' does not mean that I'm a 'person who looks'. Your lack of familiarity with the various options simply points up your naivity and lack of insight into this issue.
Let me give you some alternatives: I could also be:
A social worker
A researcher
An abuse victim
A relative of an abuse victim
Someone over the age of 40 who was simply about when this stuff was distributed more openly and less underground
Either way, I don't rate your opinions in this matter very high.
Heh. Given your obvious lack of insight, intelligence, experience and logical skills, I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
And here in the US, Legal age is 18. If you really have 16 year old porn (the girls not the porn) in your newspapers, then you are ALL "child pornographers".
We've got weapons of mass destruction as well. You'd better mount an invasion.
And if I haven't found any, there must not be much out there.
In that case, there won't be many websites that BT have to censor, will there?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that you should be able to get a full and complete understanding of a technical system solution from a Slashdot article blurb without doing any research of your own or without reading any of the links?
Not at all. Unfortunately, there isn't even the vaguest hint of what NX is from the article -- personally, I thought it was a Needle eXchange. But I decided to Google it to check.
I'm glad I did though, because otherwise I'd never have known they were incorporating some new lesbian porn server into forthcoming linux distros.
They're flocking to gmail because they are idiot sheep who can do no better than to follow pointless hype.
Hey, just because nobody's actually offered you an account yet, that's no reason to be so negative about it.
I'm sure you'll get your chance when it comes out of beta...
I don't use Linux. I've had it pounded into my head that it's difficult to use, and it's buggy, and so on and so forth.
I am not a geek. Not really. I've owned and used computers for twenty years or more, but I don't work with them and I couldn't write a program to save my life.
However, I've been using Linux since MkLinux came out on Macs. Seven or eight years? When it really *was* difficult and buggy (compared with Linux on PC's anyway). Before kernel 2.0 came out.
And you know what? It wasn't *that* difficult. But you did have to read the docs. It wasn't that buggy either -- though there were a few more devices that didn't have drivers written yet than there are today.
Essentially, I'm scared to use it.
That has to be about temperament rather than about ease of use. Do you like to learn? If so, you'll learn more about how computers and networks and the internet work in a month of using Linux, than you will in ten years of using Windows.
But back in those days, you did have to like to learn. It's not like that any more though. A modern distro like SuSe or Mandrake is just as easy to install and use as Windows. And the learning isn't obligatory any more.
The truth is, I'd LOVE to use it. I'd love to have a friend say "see how easy this is? See how stable this is?" I'd love to have it installed on a box here and tinker with it after someone showed me the basics.
You can do it yourself. I did. It's really easy. Download a distro and start installing.
I'm a fan of tacos, but I don't have a shirt
Perhaps that's because, with all the tacos you eat, you can't actually get a t-shirt that fits you?
I also figure, if you don't want a taco already, you especially don't want to hear me tout the virtues of spicy hot julienne strips of steak or chicken and fresh picante sauce covered in cheddar cheese
On the contrary. If we were eating somewhere and the fajitas were mediocre, but you knew that the tacos were to die for, I'd very much hope that you *did* inform me of that fact. Not only would you be doing me a favour, but you'd be doing a favour to the restaurant as well, because it's only via customer feedback (ie, sales of tacos increase as fajitas fall through the floor) that their business will ever improve.
It just seems to me that pimping a product without getting paid for it is a lot of work for no actualized returns returns
So does that mean that Microsoft paid you to write that post?
I can imagine the executive amazed, thinking "damn, one *can* migrate to Linux ?!"
Someone should tell them that unlike the Microsoft upgrade cycle, you only have to migrate to Linux *once*.
Only for sex. For everything else, it is called "employment."
In my experience, employees tend to slag me off and do whatever they can to sabotage me. The only people I've ever known who was prepared to fawn over me and slag off my enemies like that were also blowing me at the time.
Ergo, Ken Brown is Bill Gates' toilet slave.
Also, you totally ruin any arguement you may have, no matter how good it is, when you use a dollar sign in Microsoft's name.
Quite right. Everyone knows those dollar signs belong solely on GOLD CHAINS, hanging around our necks!
(Or is it supposed to be Mercedes logos for the Beastie Boys? I can't remember, I was only three years old in 1986.)
Keep it hard-core, guys.
You gotta fight, for your right to bukkake!
I'm sorry, I was being sarcastic. ;-)
Right. So by my reckoning, that would still be about a hundred and fifty years or so before some of your states allowed black people that privilege?
Uncle Karl was confusing Mercatilism with Capitalism
I'm sure if he had been alive, he'd have been very grateful for the correction -- not! Perhaps you might also want to look up the definition of Mercantilism
you also need to read Adam Smith to get the real feel for the ideal form of capitalism, which actually has very few workers and hundreds, sometimes thousands, of owners in any given industry
I have. As had Karl Marx, and far more assiduously than I ever bothered to. In fact, Smith's work is at least as big an influence on Marx as that of Hegel -- and I believe more so.
What Marx does in Das Kapital (and many of his other works) is to build on Smith and describe the essential features of capitalism. Not some ideal type that never existed, but the real social, economic and political phenomenon that governed the lives of men. While his political and historical predictions may have been all to cock, his analysis of capitalism and how it works was bang on the nail -- whether you agree with his assertions about the implications of that or not.
The least we could do?
When he says 'we', I assume he's speaking as a German.
There is, IMO, no reason that we SHOULD do or are obligated to do anything for anyone.
Not even if you've wiped out six million of them?
But love of liberty has been ingrained and enshrined in the American character and laws for over 200 years.
Two hundred years, huh? And when was it that you repealed the laws on slavery exactly?
No one else except perhaps Britain can match that
Nah, we learned everything we need to know about freedom from the USA. Really. We'd still be in mud huts if it wasn't for the American people bringing us freedom and civilization.
I'm an upper middle class white male. Given that, which of these is true:
You missed one out:
5. Black people hate you because you're greedy and they envy you.
I don't know whether it's accurate or defensible, but it's probably more realistic than any of the other propositions.
true capitalism and true communism are very similar, under both you own only what you need to survive and no more
Um, Mr. Marxist Hacker?
I believe that you need to spend a little more time reading the works of Uncle Karl, and a little less on hacking. According to Marx, the very basis of capitalism is the ability of the capitalists to extract surplus value from their workers. That is *not* what they need to survive and no more -- unless you consider millions in the bank to be what everybody needs to survive.
As opposed to, say, France - where you have to show a Big Mac to get a whole nation in a panic.
Perhaps, but I hear that they're rather partial to a Royale with cheese.
Perhaps that might be true if this article was even close to accurate. However, this story had nothing at all to do with the EU or the EU government.
According to the story, the people who are proposing this are delegates at a conference organized by France and an organization called the Organization for The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
According to their website, this organization is "the largest regional security organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Asia, Central and North America."
Seems to me therefore, that it would be just as accurate for this story to have been written 'US Federal Government pushes to limit internet speech'.
That would be this bit: We're talking about some serious impairment going on here -- over a million pounds worth of impairment, in fact -- and it's had a seriously negative impact on their goodwill with everyone except their drug dealer.
It is if the paper happens to be green.
Unfortunately SCO will be required to sell the unix rights to someone else in a pitiful attempt to pay off debts and pay back shareholders.
Perhaps IBM will take them in part-settlement of their counter-claims for patent infringement?
I never realized that John Kerry worked at Sun.
What did you expect? He had to go somewhere, and there's no spare cash in Microsoft's coffers because they're still paying Bush back for favours in respect of the monopoly lawsuit.
As this link shows That despite the wishes of a puritan nut to use the obscene publications acts law to prosecute John Lennon and Yoko for painting pictures of themselves having sex. They couldn't use it to prosecute art as it would set a bad precedent, for sure the law needs a change but it was already ineffective 30 years ago against true art.
j uly/11/newsid_2499000/2499721.stm
We were talking about pornography, not 'true art' whatever that may be. However, the Obscene Publications Act is still on the statutes.
What's more, it isn't the only tack that the wingnuts can take in these circumstances. There's also this one, for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/
1977 isn't that long ago. It's the year of the Sex Pistols. Anyway, my point is that these laws are still on the statutes, and as such if the powers that be so wished, they could bring a prosecution and it would be up to you to defend it. The human rights granted under the European legislation give you a defence against these charges, but it's something of a stretch to say that all pornography between consenting adults is 'legal' in the UK.
Child porn is (...) used to justify all kinds of restricstions on freedom.
Really? What freedoms have we lost as a result of child pornography?
There's the freedom to own and possess such materials, and then there's.... um?
FWIW, I don't buy the progression argument. I don't think that looking at pictures of kiddy porn is likely to make you want or not want to have sex with kids.
I think it's a wiring thing, basically. Some people just have brains that are tell them they want to do it with men. Others have brains that tell them they want to do it with kids. While it *may* be possible to reprogramme the brain (via behaviour modification programmes)_ on an issue as fundamental as this, it's a very unreliable and haphazard thing to attempt. Familiarize yourself with the story of the Reimer twins sometime:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101678
So I'm perfectly happy with people being able to exchange cartoon images, drawn images, computer generated images, etc. of anything that they want to look at.
However, almost every single piece of child pornography is a piece of evidence that was witness to one of the most serious crimes on the statute. Not only do I think that the police *should* be preventing distribution of this material, they should alsi be pursuing the creators with all of the resources at their disposal.
Yes, it is - if you are a supplier of this stuff, it means lots more profits
Actually, there's very little commercial trade in kiddy porn these days. It's far too easy to make money from regular porn to risk your income on something you'll inevitably go to prison for.
Kiddy porn tends to be home made by child abusers, and traded by other afficionados.
Rape is rape, weather a woman, man or child says "No", the problem is that no believes that a child can say "Yes", can be sexual or can have pleasure from sexual experiences.
Oh, I absolutely believe that. As a child, I had consensual sexual experiences, and I had pleasure from those experiences.
However, I had them with other children my own age.
In contrast, the many, many people that I know who had sexual relations with adults as children all feel extremely angry about the fact that they were either coerced or exploited.
The power differential caused by the difference in ages between adults and children means that sex between these two is almost always inherently exploitative -- and even in the tiny number of cases when I'd concede that it isn't, it's still illegal in order to protect kids in the very many circumstances when it would be.
Either you're a child pornographer (pornographee? A person who looks at kiddie porn), or you're a cop/lawyer/judge.
Um. None of the above. 'Having seen' does not mean that I'm a 'person who looks'. Your lack of familiarity with the various options simply points up your naivity and lack of insight into this issue.
Let me give you some alternatives: I could also be:
A social worker
A researcher
An abuse victim
A relative of an abuse victim
Someone over the age of 40 who was simply about when this stuff was distributed more openly and less underground
Either way, I don't rate your opinions in this matter very high.
Heh. Given your obvious lack of insight, intelligence, experience and logical skills, I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
And here in the US, Legal age is 18. If you really have 16 year old porn (the girls not the porn) in your newspapers, then you are ALL "child pornographers".
We've got weapons of mass destruction as well. You'd better mount an invasion.
And if I haven't found any, there must not be much out there.
In that case, there won't be many websites that BT have to censor, will there?
Fool.