As to government owned roads-- that's bullshit-- they decreed themselves the monopolists of roads. We didn't consent to them owning them. And like all nationalized services they provide crappy service at a high price (like the post office.)
I think you are missing the point about what the government is - everybody with a vote is responsible for what the government does. They are not as efficient as we would like, but some things are simply better suited to government monopolies. Some things, like national defence, can only work under government control.
As to dumping toxic waste, if you did it at a rate that did not damage my property at all-- eg: you simply idled your car for 10 minutes in the mornings before going to work, no I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Ah, but who ensures that I don't damage your property. Who decides what damage is? Idling my car next door does affect your property. There is no way I can stop pollutants spreading. So where do we draw the line? I might think that it is fine that some of the DDT I want to store next to your house will find its way onto your property. You might not think so. So who gets to decide who is right?
The government doesn't have the rigth to license cars or drivers, let alone put environmental restrictiosn on them.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Uhm... why exactly doesn't the government have the right to licence cars and drivers? You drive on government owned roads don't you?
Environmental restrictions follow the same logic, just in a broader context. What would you say if I bought the property next to yours and started using dump toxic waste? Because you don't believe in environmental restrictions you won't have any problem with that, would you?
How much (other than as much as their pockets can fit) money do they really have to make to justify their projects?
You don't understand how these people think. They don't care how much money can fit in their pockets. They know they can allways buy bigger pockets. That alone is justification enough for them.
Ouch. I was sill chuckling about reading this over at the Village Voice when I started reading this thread on Slashdot. The difference between the Israeli and American security thinking is both scary and amusing.
My favourite quote from the artcile: "No, no, no. We are not Pakistanis. We're Russians.". Security indeed. Hell, if you are going to use racial profiling at least figure out who you are profiling!:)
That is kind of my point. If your definition of the enemy runs along the lines of "If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't" then precision weapons become pretty pointless.
As an aside, the US has this interesting habit of using the term "combatant" to justify themselves when they do something wrong. Like all those "enemy combatants" in Guantanomo bay.
"There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger... If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't," Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson told the daily newspaper.
Richardson, 22, serves with the 3/15th US Infantry Division in Fallujah, 50 km west of Baghdad.
"When there were civilians there, we did the mission that had to be done. When they were there, they were at the wrong spot, so they were considered enemy," said Anthony Castillo, who is also in Richardson's company.
Speaking of a battle south of Baghdad, without giving the exact date, the soldiers said that 70 per cent of the 400 combatants on the Iraqi side were dressed in civilian clothes.
Precision weaponry makes no diffence if you don't care if you are shooting at soldiers or civians...
I like Slashdot because it does a (relatively) good job of identifying and dispelling FUD. As I suspect a larger than average proportion of geeks are atheists, it makes sense to have an article that counters the ultimate example of FUD: religion.
Anyway, both Bill Gates and Linus are atheists/agnostics. That alone should provide enough reaon to report something like this.:)
Well, using Mozilla to read/. on my iBook, I think I finally understand the term schadenfreude.:)
Still, I feel like I have to side with Microsoft on this one. They may be evil, but software patents are even worse. This might be a loss for MS but the recent SCO debacle has shown that it is a double edged sword. Remember that MS can afford more IP lawyers than the open source community...
But the pretty lines on the PowerPoint slides said that SCO owns *nix. Every VC worth his MBA knows that PowerPoint slides are the ultimate definition of truth.
Although in truth it doesn't always apply to highly paid workers (some are still lazy buggers), but quite often is the truth when dealing with attempts to save money by outsourcing.
As somebody posting to/. while he should be working in response to a comment posted by somebody else who should probably also be working, I have to say I completely agree. We are lazy buggers.:)
What about a Subaru Outback? Has everything you mentioned. OK, so it doesn't have the disturbing habit of rolling over and killing its occupants, but I'm sure you can live with that.
Check out Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java. Not really a textbook in the classic sense, but sounds like what you need. Also available in an HTML version.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Aparently the lessons of gorilla arm has been forgotten. Each generation seems set on repeating the mistakes of their predecessors.
Its a win/win for those who go along with it.
:)
I would have thought it was more a case of win/linux for those who go along with it.
Ouch. Did I actually just make a joke that lame?
The company who gets there first rarely wins. It is the first company who gets there with a good marketing department that usually wins.
Other that that I completely agree with you.
As to government owned roads-- that's bullshit-- they decreed themselves the monopolists of roads. We didn't consent to them owning them. And like all nationalized services they provide crappy service at a high price (like the post office.)
I think you are missing the point about what the government is - everybody with a vote is responsible for what the government does. They are not as efficient as we would like, but some things are simply better suited to government monopolies. Some things, like national defence, can only work under government control.
As to dumping toxic waste, if you did it at a rate that did not damage my property at all-- eg: you simply idled your car for 10 minutes in the mornings before going to work, no I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Ah, but who ensures that I don't damage your property. Who decides what damage is? Idling my car next door does affect your property. There is no way I can stop pollutants spreading. So where do we draw the line? I might think that it is fine that some of the DDT I want to store next to your house will find its way onto your property. You might not think so. So who gets to decide who is right?
The government doesn't have the rigth to license cars or drivers, let alone put environmental restrictiosn on them.
Travel is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Uhm... why exactly doesn't the government have the right to licence cars and drivers? You drive on government owned roads don't you?
Environmental restrictions follow the same logic, just in a broader context. What would you say if I bought the property next to yours and started using dump toxic waste? Because you don't believe in environmental restrictions you won't have any problem with that, would you?
How much (other than as much as their pockets can fit) money do they really have to make to justify their projects?
You don't understand how these people think. They don't care how much money can fit in their pockets. They know they can allways buy bigger pockets. That alone is justification enough for them.
Enough ranting. I'll shut up now.
You know, for someone as anal as you are, I can only recommend you investigate one of these these.
Ouch. I was sill chuckling about reading this over at the Village Voice when I started reading this thread on Slashdot. The difference between the Israeli and American security thinking is both scary and amusing.
:)
My favourite quote from the artcile: "No, no, no. We are not Pakistanis. We're Russians.". Security indeed. Hell, if you are going to use racial profiling at least figure out who you are profiling!
That is kind of my point. If your definition of the enemy runs along the lines of "If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't" then precision weapons become pretty pointless.
As an aside, the US has this interesting habit of using the term "combatant" to justify themselves when they do something wrong. Like all those "enemy combatants" in Guantanomo bay.
From news.com.au":
"There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger... If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't," Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson told the daily newspaper.
Richardson, 22, serves with the 3/15th US Infantry Division in Fallujah, 50 km west of Baghdad.
"When there were civilians there, we did the mission that had to be done. When they were there, they were at the wrong spot, so they were considered enemy," said Anthony Castillo, who is also in Richardson's company.
Speaking of a battle south of Baghdad, without giving the exact date, the soldiers said that 70 per cent of the 400 combatants on the Iraqi side were dressed in civilian clothes.
Precision weaponry makes no diffence if you don't care if you are shooting at soldiers or civians...
Yeah. This is why Terminator will always be scifi and not reality. Being an American AI, Skynet will use attack lawyers, not time travelling cyborgs.
To be fair, I have yet to see a mail client that does all the stuff that Outlook does.
:)
Yes, it'll enable you to run pretty much any e-mail virus without any compatibility problems. Non of the alternatives come even close.
I like Slashdot because it does a (relatively) good job of identifying and dispelling FUD. As I suspect a larger than average proportion of geeks are atheists, it makes sense to have an article that counters the ultimate example of FUD: religion.
:)
Anyway, both Bill Gates and Linus are atheists/agnostics. That alone should provide enough reaon to report something like this.
Don't worry. Slashdot is doing a pretty good job of suppressing the article. :)
Well, using Mozilla to read /. on my iBook, I think I finally understand the term schadenfreude. :)
Still, I feel like I have to side with Microsoft on this one. They may be evil, but software patents are even worse. This might be a loss for MS but the recent SCO debacle has shown that it is a double edged sword. Remember that MS can afford more IP lawyers than the open source community...
But I DO have posters of Torvlads on my walls :(
:)
You have a poster of the guy on you wall but you can't spell his name?
Unix sadly is dying.
:)
No. No. No. Didn't you get the memo? It's BSD that's dying, not Unix.
Except that homeopathy doesn't work. Never has. Never will.
@stake ethics
But the pretty lines on the PowerPoint slides said that SCO owns *nix. Every VC worth his MBA knows that PowerPoint slides are the ultimate definition of truth.
OK, I've heard Java called a lot of things and I know it has its faults, but I really don't think the SUV comparison holds water.
Nobody ever started using Java because they wanted to compensate for a small penis, which is the only possible reason for buying an Hummer.
Hey! That's not worth a "Troll"! Somebody with mod points fix it please.
And to the person who modded it a Troll: You're an idiot.
Although in truth it doesn't always apply to highly paid workers (some are still lazy buggers), but quite often is the truth when dealing with attempts to save money by outsourcing.
/. while he should be working in response to a comment posted by somebody else who should probably also be working, I have to say I completely agree. We are lazy buggers. :)
As somebody posting to
What about a Subaru Outback? Has everything you mentioned. OK, so it doesn't have the disturbing habit of rolling over and killing its occupants, but I'm sure you can live with that.
Just my $.02.
Check out Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java. Not really a textbook in the classic sense, but sounds like what you need. Also available in an HTML version.