The designer states that he will not sell this, and legally I can see his point. The question becomes, would any of us pay $199 for a mass-built one with Atari's blessing? I suspect that I would. What about the rest of you?
The reason French don't stay in the United States is that here, we all bathe regularly. The French are a bunch of wankers who had just barely recovered from being bitchslapped by the Kaiser when the (mostly horse-drawn) blitzkrieg bent 'em over again.
Don't forget Vichy France. Hey, we're only really going to invade half of your country, the other half can simply volunteer to do exactly as we say.
The only reason they're not all speaking Russian right now is West Germany's ability to prevent a 1960's Soviet invasion. If France, rather than Germany, had been the border state to Poland, we'd have had another Vichy France.
Taco has more or less admitted that the "Slashdot Elite" is voting for Gore. With that as a given, why not drop this whole topic? I'm not sure any of this has a real "nerd" slant - it's all simply pro-Democrat pap served with a variety of spoons - with Katz's being the greasiest.
There Is NO "Right To Life"
on
Trigger Happy
·
· Score: 1
There is no right to life. Never has been. From caveman days, to the Norman invasion, to Stalin's purges, to Chinese labor camps - the only way you get to keep life is if you can defend it.
Not all ways of defending your life require direct, violent action. Some require money, others require submission, yet others require a bit of luck. But make no mistake: without personal armament, your "right to life" is subject to violation at any time, by anyone who chooses.
Sorry to disillusion you. You can return to your government cheese now.
Exactly. Non-Americans don't have, don't understand, and probably don't want American-style freedom. That's fine. You are free to stay in your own country.
If you look at the history of Western civilizations, ALL OF THEM were "founded" by loose allegiances of powerful people who forced their vassals/slaves/serfs to obey them. All of them, that is, except America. We were founded by a bunch of hick jerkoffs who had too many guns, fucked-up religious beliefs, and no tolerance for people who didn't feel the same way they did. And ya know what? America is now the big dog. To embrace another hick-ism for a moment, let's dance with them that brung us.
Foreigners who disagree with our gun ownership are free to invade us and change our minds. For a preview of what you'll face, invade Switzerland first.
as Aristotle says. The more I learn about programming, the more religious I become, if only because I think that in life, as in any good program, there is a cause for everything, and a conscious cause at that. And Catholicism seems to be the best fit for my beliefs and background.
It wouldn't surprise me if many of the professed atheists/agnostics here were young. A lot of people feel that way when they are young.
Most of the time, when I browse, I can only see a few colors - blue for links, red for visited links, purple for emphasis, and white for everything else.
Is there something wrong with my Web Safety? Should I upgrade my version of Lynx to get all 22 colors?
I'm tired of the ESR Board and its mollycoddling attitude to what is clearly not open-source violent children's software. We don't need to ban it from K-Mart... we need to ban it, period!
But that's the kind of compromise you get when you have an ESRB. A Richard M. Stallman Board would be far more critical of those who want to sell children proprietary, code-subjugated violent video games. Sure, there are some who would call the members of the RMSB "hippies", or "a disgrace to the Open Source Violent Game cause". F-ck 'em.
There's a powerful argument to be made that selling violent video games is a lot more dangerous than selling weapons.
A nonviolent person with a rifle in his hand is not going to hurt you.
A violent individual will make it his goal to hurt you with all available weapons... or even with none. That's something I saw firsthand in the joint.
It is mindset, not weaponry, which makes someone a danger to society. If it were to be proven that violent video games increase the likelihood of acquiring a violent mindset (which I rather doubt, however) it would be perfectly reasonable to ban them... while keeping the.22 rifles available.
Positive moderation can be as bad as negative. As has been said before in this thread, unthinking positive moderation puts junk up in the public eye ("Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!! Kewl! I want one! Linux rox!") and hides unpopular but worthwhile ideas behind a screen of self-reinforcing crap.
Take a look next time when you metamod positive comments. Did it deserve to be positive, or was it simply a restating of your own, sheeplike, beliefs?
Picked up the PHP book the other day, and mein Gott, those are some dorky-lookin' bastards on the cover! Only that Jesus C. dude looks like anyone I would want to go clubbing with.
Why do they put these guys' pictures on the cover? Do they think I will respect the content more if the cover features geeks instead of woodcarved animals? Or does it operate along the lines of, "Well, if these people have spent that little time attending to their personal appearance, they must have mastered all aspects of programming with the time they saved?
Or is it a "Whew, thank G-d I'm not as geeky as those people. I'll buy this book, regardless of what's inside, because just having these pictures available affirms me and my appearance?"
Uh, sorry to reply to this late, I only read once a day.
Listen, kid, you can blast me all you want, but before you make statements you cannot support, you should take a look at the facts:
-Learn a little bit about Iridium, the Chinese launches, the difficulty China had obtaining a reasonable orbit, and the steps that were taken to correct this. We did transfer tech to them. They have used it to improve the Long March, which can now reach American shores. In case you were snoozing at the time, this is why the Chinese contributed so heavily to the DNC.
-If you think China is in any way "friendly", or "benevolent", you don't know anything about China. So learn something.
-Actually, I'm in the business of thinking for myself. That's why I'm not a Democrat. If I'm influenced by Jerry Falwell, then you are a sex slave to Harvey Fierstein.
Now, do something you're not used to doing. Check the facts, do some research. I don't expect an apology. If I help you get your head another inch out of your ass, I'll be satisfied.
Well, as they always say, if you can't beat them (with your own lame dial-up network), join them (and progressively destroy the Net community by making it your own private preserve)
it's Stallman and the GNU Project. Plus, the "rules" for the domain could be that only Free Software can be used. It would be a good way of knowing that you are dealing with the right people, kind of like a Good Housekeeping Seal.
Imagine that you have the choice between shopping at Amazon.com or Amazon.gnu. Which one do you choose? What message does that send to the world at large? A good one, I'd think...
Linux fux0ring r0x0rs, d00d. Everybody should be friends. All software is good. Let's not start a flame war. I have some lame opinions which I would like to state as meeeeeeeekly as possible.
I don't see any problem in allowing BT's claim. However, as long as they are seeking the protection of US law, they should follow it to its logical conclusion:
England benefited substantially from Lend-Lease, and repaid very little.
England benefited substantially from the Marshall Plan.
The United States did not receive timely repayment, therefore:
The United States may collect on those debts through the seizure of real property;
Which includes the United Kingdom and everything in it.
The UK, including British Telecom, is now the property of the US Government,
which may elect to place hyperlinking in the public domain as part of its so-called "DARPAnet".
Which has evolved into the Internet,
so we're allowed to hyperlink, and every American citizen is entitled to one of the Rover 75s that are in storage on airfields in England, and
Sporty Spice is my chattel and must have sex with me.
...and that's why very little of what is said, written, or accomplished will remain. Unlike, say, Eliot's Criterion, which you can still get at the library eighty years later, anything worthwhile that happens online quickly disappears or, as with USENET, is buried in crap.
Once again, Katz is no so much irrelevant as simply not relevant.
No wonder Left Eye burned down Andre Rison's house!
I admire that guy... when they asked him about staying with her despite his $2.5 million loss, he said, "I can replace the money, but I can't replace her"
This is the kind of situation I'd like to see libertarians explain away.
Well, in any business you have "barriers to entry." The barriers to entry in the lemonade-shop business are low. The barriers to entry in the aircraft-carrier-production business are high.
The barriers for CD distribution are not necessarily high, so anyone who has, say, half a million bucks could probably do it. However, with this as in all other businesses, government intervention (taxation, interstate commerce regulation, et al) raises the barriers to entry. Since the music industry is notoriously sue-happy, you would have to be very careful about entering any facet of it without a substantial legal defense fund. In the ideal libertarian world, you and I could start a distribution service and enjoy unfettered access to the retail channels.
The libertarian response to the MP3 problem, as it is to many things, is a "can't beat them, join them" response. In a libertarian world, music companies who wanted to compete with MP3 would create a reasonable, fair, low-cost MP3 system. In the Democrat/socialist view of things, the companies run to the government/legal system and beg for protection, and they'll get it, just like China will get their most-favored status no matter what! (with the exception of importing firearms, of course. It's okay to have a kid shackled to a sewing machine, but not to have inexpensive firearms available to Americans.)
Slashdot Mirror
The designer states that he will not sell this, and legally I can see his point. The question becomes, would any of us pay $199 for a mass-built one with Atari's blessing? I suspect that I would. What about the rest of you?
The only exception I can think of this is the Vietnam War, where lightly armed VC pulled the US Army's pants down.
Oh, yeah, and Afghanistan, where slam-fire guns and homemade barrels humiliated the Soviets for years on end.
Um... and I guess that the ANC managed to get their point across in South Africa, too.
Switzerland? Forget about them... maybe nobody invades them for some reason...
Yeah, I guess the various partisans in WWII accomplished a little bit..
The more I think about it, maybe "hicks with guns" have accomplished a little bit :) Sshh, don't tell Rosie O' Donnell...
Don't forget Vichy France. Hey, we're only really going to invade half of your country, the other half can simply volunteer to do exactly as we say.
The only reason they're not all speaking Russian right now is West Germany's ability to prevent a 1960's Soviet invasion. If France, rather than Germany, had been the border state to Poland, we'd have had another Vichy France.
Thank you for posting one of the few head-sans-ass commments I've read today.
Hush up, potty-mouth.
Taco has more or less admitted that the "Slashdot Elite" is voting for Gore. With that as a given, why not drop this whole topic? I'm not sure any of this has a real "nerd" slant - it's all simply pro-Democrat pap served with a variety of spoons - with Katz's being the greasiest.
Not all ways of defending your life require direct, violent action. Some require money, others require submission, yet others require a bit of luck. But make no mistake: without personal armament, your "right to life" is subject to violation at any time, by anyone who chooses.
Sorry to disillusion you. You can return to your government cheese now.
Exactly. Non-Americans don't have, don't understand, and probably don't want American-style freedom. That's fine. You are free to stay in your own country.
If you look at the history of Western civilizations, ALL OF THEM were "founded" by loose allegiances of powerful people who forced their vassals/slaves/serfs to obey them. All of them, that is, except America. We were founded by a bunch of hick jerkoffs who had too many guns, fucked-up religious beliefs, and no tolerance for people who didn't feel the same way they did. And ya know what? America is now the big dog. To embrace another hick-ism for a moment, let's dance with them that brung us.
Foreigners who disagree with our gun ownership are free to invade us and change our minds. For a preview of what you'll face, invade Switzerland first.
It wouldn't surprise me if many of the professed atheists/agnostics here were young. A lot of people feel that way when they are young.
Is there something wrong with my Web Safety? Should I upgrade my version of Lynx to get all 22 colors?
But that's the kind of compromise you get when you have an ESRB. A Richard M. Stallman Board would be far more critical of those who want to sell children proprietary, code-subjugated violent video games. Sure, there are some who would call the members of the RMSB "hippies", or "a disgrace to the Open Source Violent Game cause". F-ck 'em.
Down with the ESRB! Up with the RMSB!
A nonviolent person with a rifle in his hand is not going to hurt you.
A violent individual will make it his goal to hurt you with all available weapons... or even with none. That's something I saw firsthand in the joint.
It is mindset, not weaponry, which makes someone a danger to society. If it were to be proven that violent video games increase the likelihood of acquiring a violent mindset (which I rather doubt, however) it would be perfectly reasonable to ban them... while keeping the .22 rifles available.
Take a look next time when you metamod positive comments. Did it deserve to be positive, or was it simply a restating of your own, sheeplike, beliefs?
What, you don't believe that I'm some kind of stud? I'm a pretty tough guy:)
Why do they put these guys' pictures on the cover? Do they think I will respect the content more if the cover features geeks instead of woodcarved animals? Or does it operate along the lines of, "Well, if these people have spent that little time attending to their personal appearance, they must have mastered all aspects of programming with the time they saved?
Or is it a "Whew, thank G-d I'm not as geeky as those people. I'll buy this book, regardless of what's inside, because just having these pictures available affirms me and my appearance?"
I metamodded the other day, saw something that I thought was extremely unfairly modded, and lost two karma points for it.
Fug, I'll lose karma for this too, but in the end, who really cares?
Listen, kid, you can blast me all you want, but before you make statements you cannot support, you should take a look at the facts:
-Learn a little bit about Iridium, the Chinese launches, the difficulty China had obtaining a reasonable orbit, and the steps that were taken to correct this. We did transfer tech to them. They have used it to improve the Long March, which can now reach American shores. In case you were snoozing at the time, this is why the Chinese contributed so heavily to the DNC.
-If you think China is in any way "friendly", or "benevolent", you don't know anything about China. So learn something.
-Actually, I'm in the business of thinking for myself. That's why I'm not a Democrat. If I'm influenced by Jerry Falwell, then you are a sex slave to Harvey Fierstein.
Now, do something you're not used to doing. Check the facts, do some research. I don't expect an apology. If I help you get your head another inch out of your ass, I'll be satisfied.
ex cathedra-style rulings, prohibiting
the importation of newly manufactured FN FAL and
similar receivers.
America. No links. No freedom. No guns.
I'm so glad we "won" the cold war.
Well, as they always say, if you can't beat them
(with your own lame dial-up network), join them
(and progressively destroy the Net community by
making it your own private preserve)
Imagine that you have the choice between shopping at Amazon.com or Amazon.gnu. Which one do you choose? What message does that send to the world at large? A good one, I'd think...
Entering karma whore mode...
Linux fux0ring r0x0rs, d00d. Everybody should
be friends. All software is good. Let's not start
a flame war. I have some lame opinions which I would like to state as meeeeeeeekly as possible.
are seeking the protection of US law, they should follow it to its logical
conclusion:
so-called "DARPAnet".
the Rover 75s that are in storage on airfields in England, and
See? Problem solved.
Once again, Katz is no so much irrelevant as simply not relevant.
I admire that guy... when they asked him about staying with her despite his $2.5 million loss, he said, "I can replace the money, but I can't replace her"
The course of true love never did run smooth!
libertarians explain away.
Well, in any business you have "barriers to entry." The barriers to entry in the lemonade-shop business are low. The barriers to entry in the aircraft-carrier-production business are high.
The barriers for CD distribution are not necessarily high, so anyone who has, say, half a million bucks could probably do it. However, with this as in all other businesses, government intervention (taxation, interstate commerce regulation, et al) raises the barriers to entry. Since the music industry is notoriously sue-happy, you would have to be very careful about entering any facet of it without a substantial legal defense fund. In the ideal libertarian world, you and I could start a distribution service and enjoy unfettered access to the retail channels.
The libertarian response to the MP3 problem, as it is to many things, is a "can't beat them, join them" response. In a libertarian world, music companies who wanted to compete with MP3 would create a reasonable, fair, low-cost MP3 system. In the Democrat/socialist view of things, the companies run to the government/legal system and beg for protection, and they'll get it, just like China will get their most-favored status no matter what! (with the exception of importing firearms, of course. It's okay to have a kid shackled to a sewing machine, but not to have inexpensive firearms available to Americans.)