Dude, why is this modded 'funny'? I do the same thing, and it's true.
Re:That's all well and good...
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I just pine away for the old GNOME where apps came with a healthy set of options instead of a insufficient few that don't exactly represent the settings I want or need. The configuration editing tool helped me to unearth a lot of hidden settings, and it lead me to becoming slightly more satisfied, but it didn't exactly do everything that I wanted.
As for things like "focus follows mouse" and the like, I used to be an avid user of features like that. Not in KDE, but in GNOME and every other window manager. They can be quite useful, but I kind of got over that and settled into "click to focus." But whatever other people prefer is cool with me.
I think nautilus is pretty good, but for some reason I'm not very fond of using it. It seems to get in my way, and I don't like that feeling, but I do believe you when you say that I can change settings to fix it for my tastes. Of course, I still maintain that konqueror is a fine file manager in its own right.
Also, I find that you complaint about the configuration menus and whatnot valid. KDE takes a bit of customization, but I usually just sit down with a new install and go through the control panel until I'm satisfied. Most users shouldn't have to do this. So far the way the options are grouped together and how they present themselves in the UI is a bit of a mess. The latest incarnation of control panel suits my tastes less than the original idea, but hopefully they sort that out.
The parent asked for you to be specific...You could have saved a whole lot time on your post if you just wrote one word: "No.":)
Re:That's all well and good...
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
For me it's always been the exact opposite. Back in the day, when KDE and GNOME were budding projects, it just seemed to me that GNOME "felt" right. It seemed to have the right level of flexibility, it was relatively good looking, and gave me a satisfied, functional feeling.
Lately times have been changing.
I still think GNOME is ahead in terms of "look and feel." KDE is usually touted as being eye candy, but you just can't convince me that GNOME doesn't look better. GNOME still feels comfortable to me, so what about it drove me to use KDE, my preferred desktop at the moment?
Functionality. Sometimes I get sick of looking at KDE, but I keep on using it because it does everything I like. I get to have windows that snap together as I resize them, a set of graphical tools that can actually be configured, a file manager that isn't almost useless, etc.
My largest complaint against GNOME right now is their philosophy that more features means less usability. Even if that were true, I don't see how that justifies dropping features to improve usability. Give me something slightly more challenging to use but does everything that I want.
Alright, so I run a web server. I see this thing going down, and I say to myself "I am not going to give the government permission to crawl my site." Fair enough.
What I need to know is what IP addresses they are going to be operating from so I can configure Apache to deny requests from them. Easier still would be if I knew how their client would identify itself.
They could circumvent my measures pretty easily by trying hard to disguise who they are and come from various, non-suspect locations, but if that's the case then this means war.
So anyway, where can I get information so I can start preparing to fight this initiative?
HIV does not work that way.
The HIV virus is only able to enter specific cells. Because it attacks those cells exclusively, not every cell in your body is going to get infected, so for the most part your genome will be unaltered. The cells that HAVE had their DNA messed with are going to die anyway when they can no longer coninue producing more HIV. A cure that destroyed the HIV molecules would indeed be effective.
If it's been this long and they haven't cancelled it yet, they might just see it through to release. In which case I will be there to link to my post and say "I told you so," and all those people who claimed that it would never be released are going to turn over in their graves (as most of them will be dead by then).
I get free software that's as good as what I'm using now. If it doesn't, I already have tools that work and a commercial software market that understands how to supply better tools in the future.
For many of us, the mere fact that a piece of software isn't Free makes it "not good enough." You'd probably call us religious or fanatics, but to me it's a matter of investing in the future. I for one don't believe the market understands how to supply better tools (I grew up with Windows in the home...need I say more?), and it never did supply me with the tools I needed (I couldn't afford professional development software--I learned how to program with pirated MS development tools).
I still don't believe a lack of features should be taken as an attribution of failure for Free software. Also, it would not surprise me if there doesn't already exist a project (tool or library) appart from GIMP that will do CYMK conversion, waiting to be incorporated. It's very well possible the feature will appear in the near future.
As for your first comment, you lead me to believe that you just don't "get" what this "missing feature" is.
I understand what the feature is; I work as a writer for my college's newspaper, and I've had discussions with the photographers and photo editors about it. CMYK is indeed a showstopper, but just for a certain class of people.
And, yes, the fact that people keep saying that GIMP is perfectly good enough for something -- when I KNOW that it just won't work for this purpose -- tells me a lot about the credibility of the development model.
It just seems to me that you and "people" have a small disagreement about what that "something" is. I've used GIMP for a lot of different things, including development for a software project, and I've noticed it's perfectly good for a *lot* of somethings. Unfortunately, it's not good for your something.
Too many of its proponents spew ignorant puffery that would put MS to shame. There are some very good developers doing good work in OSS, but there are way too many people who are willing to pontificate about things they know nothing about.
Perhaps, but Free software will always be about the folks who are getting the work done and developing the software. There is a large fanbase around that will act foolish at times and pontificate like you said, but my experience is that the main people are wise enough to keep their mouths shut when it comes to things they don't know much about (with the possible exception of Linus Torvalds).
Okay, so one feature is missing from one piece of software, and now the entire OSS movement has lost its credibility to "professionals" such as yourself?
I take your sentiments as a very positive sign, because your ferocity suggests to me that you have a genuine desire to see OSS succeed in the areas you've mentioned.
It's not too late for them to make a great game out of this. What they're going to have to do, however, is change the name and sell under a different title than Duke Nukem. If people don't know that the game is DNF, then I believe it will be received better by the industry since no negative association with the history of the project is being attached. All they will have to do is invent some new themes and characters while keeping most of the development that went into the engine and design.
If they have Duke Nukem content, the could sell it later as a mod or expansion of some sort.
You sum it all up quite elegantly when you say "Mine, mine, mine!"
If you're an sysadmin type of person (most people aren't, but I am), the convenience and security of running your own servers is very difficult to compromise on. When it's your box, you're in control--you can fine tune it to fit your needs exactly, and you can change anything instantly at your discretion.
Trusting your stuff to professionals is not too bad of an idea, but you have to realize that you're dealing with an organization of people that don't have any vested interest in you or your data. They'll do their best to serve you most of the time, but they'll never be able to do it as well as you could for yourself. Because of levels of authority and control, getting necessary things done for *you* on a machine owned by *someone else* requires you to go through them, and there will be bureaucracies, red tape, and layers upon layers of people who can't do anything to facilitate a solution. Eventually it might get to someone who can, but there is always the chance that they can't or won't.
What if your box needs something special? A custom kernel or special modules? Specific settings on a certain server? I don't know man...
I personally believe lying to be antisocial and harmful to people. Yes, there are ways for good people to tell lies for good reasons, but I personally think the bad outweights the good. In the long term, I think the entire human race would be better off if we all had a better understanding of what the truth is.
Apologists, mostly. That would seem to support, not refute, my comment.
It seems to me, however, that the article made its way on to Slashdot because the practice here is questionable, and, as others have pointed out, possibly illegal. You and I make two outraged posters, and there others to look at. Also, we need not neglect those who are outraged and yet did not post. Surely, apologists would be eager to explain themselves out of this situation while opponents might more likely feel that nothing more needs to be said since what he's doing is obviously wrong.
As well you should be, being a Communist. Last I heard, the World Worker's Party didn't do so hot in the last election, and North Korea is about as close as you're getting to a Worker's Paradise. Stalin, Lenin, and Marx would be so proud of what Communism has done for the world in fighting those repressive, despotic Capitalists. After all, no matter where you look in the world, Communist countries are bastions of freedom and human rights, where the average citizen lives a life of luxury, while the Capitalist countries are mired in sqaulor, ruled with an iron fist, and backwards with respect to the rest of the world...right?
Whether intentional or not, you're invoking the fallacy of equivocation. I'm not a supporting member of any of the governments or organizations that you mention, nor do I necessarily agree with their policies or forms. Just because those things happened to call themselves "communist", it does not mean the word has the same meaning in the context that I apply it. From my perspective, calling the Soviet Union, an authoritarian government that was resisted and defeated in Poland by a national labor union, "communist" is ridiculous.
Yes, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm making fun of the fact that you claim to be a Communist, an ideology so ridiculous that it's failed repeatedly throughout history despite the earnest attempts of many dictators, despots, lunatics, and strongmen. That's my opinion, and I'm sure you disagree. I am a Libertarian, practically your ideological opposite...what did you expect? But I digress.
Don't be too hasty. Surely, as a libertarian, you believe in a society based on the values and cooperation of individuals who work together for the benefit of society as a whole, organizing voluntarily when necessary, and unrestrained by an overbearing state. In this sense, communism and libertarianism are two different words for something that's nearly identical. However, I believe that in order for such a social model to be successful, people need to share very strong core values about such things as honesty, integrity, and the need to place others before one's self. Many people who are attracted to "libertarianism" are those conservatives that think "The government isn't letting me do I want, so let's destroy it." Most things that such people want to do need to be done at the risk or expense of others, which I don't find acceptable. Sure, you can put a pretty face on it by using glittering generalities...citing freedom, honor, heritage, honesty, and all that, but communism follows a more altruistic way of thinking: "The government isn't letting us do what we ought to be doing for eachother, so let's destroy it." There are other important differences along that line, but I feel trouble articulating them in a way that does them justice. If it comes up, I'd do my best.
That does not moot the efficiency of a generalization such as the one that was made, especially since there are far more cases where my generalization is true that false.
No, there is no justification for such a generalization. You need to say exactly what you mean and not assume that everyone knows what you're talking about. Your generalization doesn't have different cases of true and false; you called it an "absolute truth". That statement is either true or false alltogether, and it's alltogether fa
But, since Meehan is a Democrat, expect this to get absolutely no mention in any news outlet. Nor will there be any huge outrage on Daily Kos, Slashdot, or any other website with a decidedly large portion of liberal-leaning (and thus Democrat-leaning) users.
I think the existence of the article you're posting on directly refutes the entire basis of your argument (especially since you specifically mentioned Slashdot). Good job.
Take a look at some of the other people posting on this article; you'll find plenty of outrage. I'm a communist, and I too am outraged.
liberal-leaning (and thus Democrat-leaning)
You're kidding, right? Democrats are not all liberal, just like republicans are not all conservative. Even given my own political opinions, I refuse to support the democratic party.
but everyone knows this is the is the absolute truth.
I don't "know" this, and I'm someone. I've just proved your statement absolutely false. Perhaps you should learn not to exaggerate and state your opinions as if they are facts.
Democrats get a free pass for this kind of behavior, but Republicans get called everything but a child of God for the same kind of actions.
Alright, let's see some examples. Come on--let's see them.
Disclaimer: I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, not a Republican, so take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. I call 'em as I see 'em.
What you are has nothing to do with the truth or validity of what you're saying.
I wouldn't just call your view a "foreigner's" view; I'm a natural born citizen of the United States, and I feel the same way you do. This country is very funny about what it chooses to remember, and usually the root of it can be traced to the strong sense of nationalism. For example, we mourn the deaths of 7 hazardous duty workers (ie "astronauts") with so much fervor, but rarely is mentioned the nuclear bombs that our country dropped on Japan during the second world war--a mass murder of over two hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children. Ask most US citizens about it, and you'll get a response something like "Oh well, we did it because we had to." Right.
Yes, there are a lot of us that are in the same boat as you are. I'm not a Mac user probably because I can't afford it, but also because I'm married to unix. I use linux on the desktop, but when people I know bother me about what kind of computer they should buy, I just tell them to get an Apple computer. Usually they respond with disgust, which then causes me to taunt them, but at least they don't ask me again for purchasing advice. The sad part is that, for most people that ask, the advice I give is actually the best.
Nobody asks me to fix their computer problems anymore because I just tell them that I don't use Windows.
You don't have to create positive "information" to put something in a positive light. Censoring anything negative about something, only leaving the positive, can surely be seen as the definition of bias.
The massacre is not being put in a positive light. The PRC's involvement in the massacre is not put in a positive light. The massacre isn't even mentioned. The massacre is not something about Tiananmen. There's nothing truly important or special about that place.
What happened at Tiananmen changed the way it would be percieved forever. It might not have been built on evil, or for the sake evil. But it is now associated with violent supression, and evil.
But why? That kind of thinking is a product of stupidity. For example, Germany and Japan were countries who were enemies of the United States during World War II. Today we embrace those countries and cultures--we don't associate them with "evil". Those events are not part of how we perceive those countries, and we don't associate them with that anymore.
If google clams that "Tiananmen" is a tourist destination first and foremost, that trivializes the massacare, that throws it in positive light saying the massacare was far less important/relevant/interesting than tourists drinking martinis.
No, it doesn't trivialize the massacre. It does not put the massacre in a positive light. It puts Tiananmen itself in a positive light, but there is nothing evil about that. There is nothing evil about Tiananmen. The massacre could have taken place anywhere else, and the significance of the event has nothing to do with the physical place called Tiananmen. Yes, the massacre itself is censored--NO, the place of Tiananmen is not. Do you expect them to go around denying that it even exists?
The question is does selectively hiding relevant information, or misrepresenting it count as something evil; I maintain it does.
That is not the question.
The original poster clearly gave two situations: Situation A, in which the massacre is merely covered up (lesser evil), and Situation B, in which the massacre is misrepresented or lied about (greater evil). He claimed that the results on the search depict situation B, but it is clear that they actually depict situation A, not B.
The reason they depict situation A is that they tell no lies and give no misinformation about the *massacre*--the event in question. They simply don't mention it. The place of Tiananmen is not being called into question here; it might as well have happened in Beijing or Ghongzhou. This does not change the issue. Go back and read the parent and understand what is being said.
You might be saying that both of those things are the same. The original poster clearly gave us the premise that they are not and that they are quite different (he also said he minded one but not the other). I was merely pointing out which of those cases is actually happening. You also might be saying that you feel both are equally evil, in which case your feelings are valid, but that was not what the parent of my post said, and that post is what I have addressed.
I don't know if I can agree with you that what's shown on the Chinese sheet qualifies as "biased misinformation." Remember that Tiananmen is still an actual place, and what's being shown are indeed Tiananmen. These photos do not display the particular incident in question in a positive light; on the contrary, they don't make any reference to the incident at all. This is the same as your "0" results scenario, which you yourself deemed acceptable.
The point is to censor information about only a single event that happened at that place, not the actual place itself. Looking at those photos, it's a beautiful place, don't you think?
I think the problem here isn't more women in tech - it is a liberal hatred of men and women.
No such thing exists. Are you paranoid or something?
They try to make men act more feminine, and try to make women act more masculine
Who is "they"? "They" are also out to get you, aren't they? Tell us who exactly is trying to make anyone act out any sort of gender role. Last time I checked, the only people I've ever met that *ever* gave a damn about what a gender was supposed to act like and whether or not anyone acted like their gender were conservative.
men and women are different, should be different, and complement each other rather than compete with each other.
Men and women are different. The whole notion of "should" is something you made up based on your own personal opinions. I too believe that men and women complement each other, and I also believe that competition is bad. These are natural beliefs for me because I'm a communist, yet you're saying "liberals" don't believe this. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
IMHO, there are too many political interests that absolutely hate that because it leads to a stable family system, and that leads to less dependence on welfare, public freebies, and government programs.
Too many? Name one. Seriously, what have you got to show for yourself? Liberals are often branded as being more socially conscious than conservatives, and if that's true then reason stands that they would be the first to support such things as "stable families." Social initiatives such as welfare were conceived in order to help people succeed. Whether or not they actually achieve this is an important question, but you're mistaken in stating that these things are related to some sort of conspiracy to destroy your special gender or whatever it is you're afraid of or angry about. The statements you are making are very distorted and false.
I can remember reading about a very similar case that happened years ago. I believe it is detailed in one of my Lawrence Lessig books. It basically went like this: a student at a university had developed a search engine with a caching function. If you think about it, that's exactly the kind of technology that Google has.
The poor boy was threatened with lawsuits. I don't know whether he tried to fight them or not, but he did get shafted. If memory serves correct, he settled and the RIAA or whoever squeezed him for as much as they could (which wasn't very much). Hopefully this case with Google sets a precedent that may be used in other cases.
He's right. It's not. Mod him as a Troll if you will, but here is my reasoning:
Linux, unlike Windows, can be made to do whatever by anyone. The processor is one tiny component of the system, and even though x86 binaries may be able to run out of the box, an operating system has to deal with a great many more things. I don't know much about the chipsets and devices that comprise the new Intel Macs, but if they are at all unsupported by Windows then for practical purposes the whole project is dead in the water (unless Microsoft itself adapts the system). Third parties could write drivers and possibly coax the system into running on unexpected hardware (Apple certainly won't), but closed, proprietary software like Windows is designed to fight such efforts, leaving platform support to the whim of Microsoft.
I'm skeptical as to how many resources Microsoft is willing devote to porting Windows to the Mac. Microsoft follows money, and the money lies in giving Mac users what they want. Do you think Mac users will buy a Mac so they can use Windows? Of course not; they want Apple software. Anyone interested in Windows will sooner buy a "PC" because they're more inexpensive in terms of hardware value.
The best market to attack is the Mac user's desire to run Windows programs--not all programs, mind you, but a select few. Porting Windows itself and expecting Mac users to dual boot is just a bit too much to ask, so I think Microsoft would sooner implement a Windows API layer (aka MS WINE) for Mac than actually port the whole system.
Since clearly a better route is available, Microsoft doesn't have a good enough incentive to put a high priority making Windows run on the Mac.
In the mean time, busy buzzing linux bees will be porting from day one.
Slashdot Mirror
I told you so.
Dude, why is this modded 'funny'? I do the same thing, and it's true.
As for things like "focus follows mouse" and the like, I used to be an avid user of features like that. Not in KDE, but in GNOME and every other window manager. They can be quite useful, but I kind of got over that and settled into "click to focus." But whatever other people prefer is cool with me.
I think nautilus is pretty good, but for some reason I'm not very fond of using it. It seems to get in my way, and I don't like that feeling, but I do believe you when you say that I can change settings to fix it for my tastes. Of course, I still maintain that konqueror is a fine file manager in its own right.
Also, I find that you complaint about the configuration menus and whatnot valid. KDE takes a bit of customization, but I usually just sit down with a new install and go through the control panel until I'm satisfied. Most users shouldn't have to do this. So far the way the options are grouped together and how they present themselves in the UI is a bit of a mess. The latest incarnation of control panel suits my tastes less than the original idea, but hopefully they sort that out.
The parent asked for you to be specific...You could have saved a whole lot time on your post if you just wrote one word: "No." :)
Lately times have been changing.
I still think GNOME is ahead in terms of "look and feel." KDE is usually touted as being eye candy, but you just can't convince me that GNOME doesn't look better. GNOME still feels comfortable to me, so what about it drove me to use KDE, my preferred desktop at the moment?
Functionality. Sometimes I get sick of looking at KDE, but I keep on using it because it does everything I like. I get to have windows that snap together as I resize them, a set of graphical tools that can actually be configured, a file manager that isn't almost useless, etc.
My largest complaint against GNOME right now is their philosophy that more features means less usability. Even if that were true, I don't see how that justifies dropping features to improve usability. Give me something slightly more challenging to use but does everything that I want.
What I need to know is what IP addresses they are going to be operating from so I can configure Apache to deny requests from them. Easier still would be if I knew how their client would identify itself.
They could circumvent my measures pretty easily by trying hard to disguise who they are and come from various, non-suspect locations, but if that's the case then this means war.
So anyway, where can I get information so I can start preparing to fight this initiative?
HIV does not work that way. The HIV virus is only able to enter specific cells. Because it attacks those cells exclusively, not every cell in your body is going to get infected, so for the most part your genome will be unaltered. The cells that HAVE had their DNA messed with are going to die anyway when they can no longer coninue producing more HIV. A cure that destroyed the HIV molecules would indeed be effective.
If it's been this long and they haven't cancelled it yet, they might just see it through to release. In which case I will be there to link to my post and say "I told you so," and all those people who claimed that it would never be released are going to turn over in their graves (as most of them will be dead by then).
For many of us, the mere fact that a piece of software isn't Free makes it "not good enough." You'd probably call us religious or fanatics, but to me it's a matter of investing in the future. I for one don't believe the market understands how to supply better tools (I grew up with Windows in the home...need I say more?), and it never did supply me with the tools I needed (I couldn't afford professional development software--I learned how to program with pirated MS development tools).
I still don't believe a lack of features should be taken as an attribution of failure for Free software. Also, it would not surprise me if there doesn't already exist a project (tool or library) appart from GIMP that will do CYMK conversion, waiting to be incorporated. It's very well possible the feature will appear in the near future.
As for your first comment, you lead me to believe that you just don't "get" what this "missing feature" is.
I understand what the feature is; I work as a writer for my college's newspaper, and I've had discussions with the photographers and photo editors about it. CMYK is indeed a showstopper, but just for a certain class of people.
And, yes, the fact that people keep saying that GIMP is perfectly good enough for something -- when I KNOW that it just won't work for this purpose -- tells me a lot about the credibility of the development model.
It just seems to me that you and "people" have a small disagreement about what that "something" is. I've used GIMP for a lot of different things, including development for a software project, and I've noticed it's perfectly good for a *lot* of somethings. Unfortunately, it's not good for your something.
Too many of its proponents spew ignorant puffery that would put MS to shame. There are some very good developers doing good work in OSS, but there are way too many people who are willing to pontificate about things they know nothing about.
Perhaps, but Free software will always be about the folks who are getting the work done and developing the software. There is a large fanbase around that will act foolish at times and pontificate like you said, but my experience is that the main people are wise enough to keep their mouths shut when it comes to things they don't know much about (with the possible exception of Linus Torvalds).
I take your sentiments as a very positive sign, because your ferocity suggests to me that you have a genuine desire to see OSS succeed in the areas you've mentioned.
If they have Duke Nukem content, the could sell it later as a mod or expansion of some sort.
Just perform the research on yourself. One person is not a large enough sample size, of course, but just find more "researchers" willing to help.
If you're an sysadmin type of person (most people aren't, but I am), the convenience and security of running your own servers is very difficult to compromise on. When it's your box, you're in control--you can fine tune it to fit your needs exactly, and you can change anything instantly at your discretion.
Trusting your stuff to professionals is not too bad of an idea, but you have to realize that you're dealing with an organization of people that don't have any vested interest in you or your data. They'll do their best to serve you most of the time, but they'll never be able to do it as well as you could for yourself. Because of levels of authority and control, getting necessary things done for *you* on a machine owned by *someone else* requires you to go through them, and there will be bureaucracies, red tape, and layers upon layers of people who can't do anything to facilitate a solution. Eventually it might get to someone who can, but there is always the chance that they can't or won't.
What if your box needs something special? A custom kernel or special modules? Specific settings on a certain server? I don't know man...
I personally believe lying to be antisocial and harmful to people. Yes, there are ways for good people to tell lies for good reasons, but I personally think the bad outweights the good. In the long term, I think the entire human race would be better off if we all had a better understanding of what the truth is.
Apologists, mostly. That would seem to support, not refute, my comment.
It seems to me, however, that the article made its way on to Slashdot because the practice here is questionable, and, as others have pointed out, possibly illegal. You and I make two outraged posters, and there others to look at. Also, we need not neglect those who are outraged and yet did not post. Surely, apologists would be eager to explain themselves out of this situation while opponents might more likely feel that nothing more needs to be said since what he's doing is obviously wrong.
As well you should be, being a Communist. Last I heard, the World Worker's Party didn't do so hot in the last election, and North Korea is about as close as you're getting to a Worker's Paradise. Stalin, Lenin, and Marx would be so proud of what Communism has done for the world in fighting those repressive, despotic Capitalists. After all, no matter where you look in the world, Communist countries are bastions of freedom and human rights, where the average citizen lives a life of luxury, while the Capitalist countries are mired in sqaulor, ruled with an iron fist, and backwards with respect to the rest of the world...right?
Whether intentional or not, you're invoking the fallacy of equivocation. I'm not a supporting member of any of the governments or organizations that you mention, nor do I necessarily agree with their policies or forms. Just because those things happened to call themselves "communist", it does not mean the word has the same meaning in the context that I apply it. From my perspective, calling the Soviet Union, an authoritarian government that was resisted and defeated in Poland by a national labor union, "communist" is ridiculous.
Yes, in case you haven't figured it out, I'm making fun of the fact that you claim to be a Communist, an ideology so ridiculous that it's failed repeatedly throughout history despite the earnest attempts of many dictators, despots, lunatics, and strongmen. That's my opinion, and I'm sure you disagree. I am a Libertarian, practically your ideological opposite...what did you expect? But I digress.
Don't be too hasty. Surely, as a libertarian, you believe in a society based on the values and cooperation of individuals who work together for the benefit of society as a whole, organizing voluntarily when necessary, and unrestrained by an overbearing state. In this sense, communism and libertarianism are two different words for something that's nearly identical. However, I believe that in order for such a social model to be successful, people need to share very strong core values about such things as honesty, integrity, and the need to place others before one's self. Many people who are attracted to "libertarianism" are those conservatives that think "The government isn't letting me do I want, so let's destroy it." Most things that such people want to do need to be done at the risk or expense of others, which I don't find acceptable. Sure, you can put a pretty face on it by using glittering generalities...citing freedom, honor, heritage, honesty, and all that, but communism follows a more altruistic way of thinking: "The government isn't letting us do what we ought to be doing for eachother, so let's destroy it." There are other important differences along that line, but I feel trouble articulating them in a way that does them justice. If it comes up, I'd do my best.
That does not moot the efficiency of a generalization such as the one that was made, especially since there are far more cases where my generalization is true that false.
No, there is no justification for such a generalization. You need to say exactly what you mean and not assume that everyone knows what you're talking about. Your generalization doesn't have different cases of true and false; you called it an "absolute truth". That statement is either true or false alltogether, and it's alltogether fa
I think the existence of the article you're posting on directly refutes the entire basis of your argument (especially since you specifically mentioned Slashdot). Good job.
Take a look at some of the other people posting on this article; you'll find plenty of outrage. I'm a communist, and I too am outraged.
liberal-leaning (and thus Democrat-leaning)
You're kidding, right? Democrats are not all liberal, just like republicans are not all conservative. Even given my own political opinions, I refuse to support the democratic party.
" usual liberal ranting, etc. etc."
See links.
but everyone knows this is the is the absolute truth.
I don't "know" this, and I'm someone. I've just proved your statement absolutely false. Perhaps you should learn not to exaggerate and state your opinions as if they are facts.
Democrats get a free pass for this kind of behavior, but Republicans get called everything but a child of God for the same kind of actions.
Alright, let's see some examples. Come on--let's see them.
Disclaimer: I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, not a Republican, so take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. I call 'em as I see 'em.
What you are has nothing to do with the truth or validity of what you're saying.
I wouldn't just call your view a "foreigner's" view; I'm a natural born citizen of the United States, and I feel the same way you do. This country is very funny about what it chooses to remember, and usually the root of it can be traced to the strong sense of nationalism. For example, we mourn the deaths of 7 hazardous duty workers (ie "astronauts") with so much fervor, but rarely is mentioned the nuclear bombs that our country dropped on Japan during the second world war--a mass murder of over two hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children. Ask most US citizens about it, and you'll get a response something like "Oh well, we did it because we had to." Right.
Nobody asks me to fix their computer problems anymore because I just tell them that I don't use Windows.
I think screenshots will be the selling point for most people.
You don't have to create positive "information" to put something in a positive light. Censoring anything negative about something, only leaving the positive, can surely be seen as the definition of bias.
The massacre is not being put in a positive light. The PRC's involvement in the massacre is not put in a positive light. The massacre isn't even mentioned. The massacre is not something about Tiananmen. There's nothing truly important or special about that place.
What happened at Tiananmen changed the way it would be percieved forever. It might not have been built on evil, or for the sake evil. But it is now associated with violent supression, and evil.
But why? That kind of thinking is a product of stupidity. For example, Germany and Japan were countries who were enemies of the United States during World War II. Today we embrace those countries and cultures--we don't associate them with "evil". Those events are not part of how we perceive those countries, and we don't associate them with that anymore.
No, it doesn't trivialize the massacre. It does not put the massacre in a positive light. It puts Tiananmen itself in a positive light, but there is nothing evil about that. There is nothing evil about Tiananmen. The massacre could have taken place anywhere else, and the significance of the event has nothing to do with the physical place called Tiananmen. Yes, the massacre itself is censored--NO, the place of Tiananmen is not. Do you expect them to go around denying that it even exists?
The question is does selectively hiding relevant information, or misrepresenting it count as something evil; I maintain it does.
That is not the question.
The original poster clearly gave two situations: Situation A, in which the massacre is merely covered up (lesser evil), and Situation B, in which the massacre is misrepresented or lied about (greater evil). He claimed that the results on the search depict situation B, but it is clear that they actually depict situation A, not B.
The reason they depict situation A is that they tell no lies and give no misinformation about the *massacre*--the event in question. They simply don't mention it. The place of Tiananmen is not being called into question here; it might as well have happened in Beijing or Ghongzhou. This does not change the issue. Go back and read the parent and understand what is being said.
You might be saying that both of those things are the same. The original poster clearly gave us the premise that they are not and that they are quite different (he also said he minded one but not the other). I was merely pointing out which of those cases is actually happening. You also might be saying that you feel both are equally evil, in which case your feelings are valid, but that was not what the parent of my post said, and that post is what I have addressed.
The point is to censor information about only a single event that happened at that place, not the actual place itself. Looking at those photos, it's a beautiful place, don't you think?
No such thing exists. Are you paranoid or something?
They try to make men act more feminine, and try to make women act more masculine
Who is "they"? "They" are also out to get you, aren't they? Tell us who exactly is trying to make anyone act out any sort of gender role. Last time I checked, the only people I've ever met that *ever* gave a damn about what a gender was supposed to act like and whether or not anyone acted like their gender were conservative.
men and women are different, should be different, and complement each other rather than compete with each other.
Men and women are different. The whole notion of "should" is something you made up based on your own personal opinions. I too believe that men and women complement each other, and I also believe that competition is bad. These are natural beliefs for me because I'm a communist, yet you're saying "liberals" don't believe this. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
IMHO, there are too many political interests that absolutely hate that because it leads to a stable family system, and that leads to less dependence on welfare, public freebies, and government programs.
Too many? Name one. Seriously, what have you got to show for yourself? Liberals are often branded as being more socially conscious than conservatives, and if that's true then reason stands that they would be the first to support such things as "stable families." Social initiatives such as welfare were conceived in order to help people succeed. Whether or not they actually achieve this is an important question, but you're mistaken in stating that these things are related to some sort of conspiracy to destroy your special gender or whatever it is you're afraid of or angry about. The statements you are making are very distorted and false.
The poor boy was threatened with lawsuits. I don't know whether he tried to fight them or not, but he did get shafted. If memory serves correct, he settled and the RIAA or whoever squeezed him for as much as they could (which wasn't very much). Hopefully this case with Google sets a precedent that may be used in other cases.
Linux, unlike Windows, can be made to do whatever by anyone. The processor is one tiny component of the system, and even though x86 binaries may be able to run out of the box, an operating system has to deal with a great many more things. I don't know much about the chipsets and devices that comprise the new Intel Macs, but if they are at all unsupported by Windows then for practical purposes the whole project is dead in the water (unless Microsoft itself adapts the system). Third parties could write drivers and possibly coax the system into running on unexpected hardware (Apple certainly won't), but closed, proprietary software like Windows is designed to fight such efforts, leaving platform support to the whim of Microsoft.
I'm skeptical as to how many resources Microsoft is willing devote to porting Windows to the Mac. Microsoft follows money, and the money lies in giving Mac users what they want. Do you think Mac users will buy a Mac so they can use Windows? Of course not; they want Apple software. Anyone interested in Windows will sooner buy a "PC" because they're more inexpensive in terms of hardware value.
The best market to attack is the Mac user's desire to run Windows programs--not all programs, mind you, but a select few. Porting Windows itself and expecting Mac users to dual boot is just a bit too much to ask, so I think Microsoft would sooner implement a Windows API layer (aka MS WINE) for Mac than actually port the whole system.
Since clearly a better route is available, Microsoft doesn't have a good enough incentive to put a high priority making Windows run on the Mac.
In the mean time, busy buzzing linux bees will be porting from day one.