If developing for GNUSTEP is anything like developing for Cocoa, that would be great. But why, oh, why must everything OSS have a supposedly cute, but actually ugly, name like GORM? Or Postgre? It's not clever and it sounds like vomit.
Sure, but if the first robot brains don't use positrons, we're screwed.:-)
Just think. If they were developed ten years ago, they would have used tachyons. If they are developed in the next ten years, they will use nanobots. Projective fiction has its fashions, too.
It begs the question of whether or not communist countries failed because they had a communist economy, or because they were a dictatorship.
I think you're missing the point. Where there have been democratic (i.e., non-dictatorial) communist regimes, we in the U.S. and Europe have made sure they were put down quickly. So, if it "begs" any question, it's this: what is so scary about some tiny country having a communist economy, that we feel we have to destroy it and proclaim all forms of communism to be totalitarian?
Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system?
Oh, I know. We (in the U.S. especially) have made sure of that. The message we've effectively sent is: vote in the communists, and we'll send in the death squads. Try reading up about Nicaragua, for one.
If you think dissent is equivalent to anti-Americanism, you don't deserve to call yourself an American. Please fuck off and die under the heel of some foreign dictator if you love fascism so much.
Since no one else seems to have said it, I will. What is most striking about this rather old video is how much is just like the Mac OS X of today: postscript display, system services, rtf for mail, network interoperability, the dock, interface builder, even something that looks very much like Pages. Pretty remarkable that 12 or so years later, it's still just coming together, and other OSs are still catching up.
Just responding to myself here. Did no one get it (except maybe for the person who mentioned women looking at women)? I'm not offended, and I'm not crying. In fact, I couldn't care less. But I thought it would be fun to see all the knee-jerk reactions.
The write-up says: "give a monkey... and he'll..." You have to admit there's a logical problem there, akin to saying "give me a screwdriver, and the phillips head will..." or "cut a fruit in half and your kitchen will smell like oranges." In linguistics, the way that the category of maleness is being used here is called "unmarked." You don't have to be a raving "feminazi" to understand the logic, smart boys.
So to those of you who fell for it and got your anti-feminist ire up so quickly, I say: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
You do need to point it out, if only because the way you phrased your description of "people's" motivation to give implied a distinction between people and Asians. It's not that I believe that you believe in such a distinction, but your words can easily give a different impression.
being confronted with '150.000 asians dying' it doesn't give (most) people the direct feeling to donate ("Aw, millions of asians are dying every year : Why should I care now?")
Government is the organization which holds the unique "right" to initiate physical force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal.
So when I fire up my chainsaw and cut through a tree, I become a criminal? When I pull weeds out of the ground, I am a criminal? Or what do you mean? What is "initiating" "physical" "force"? Isn't the word "physical" redundant here? You claim it's the only meaningful, unambiguous definition: if so, then why not just say "force"? If it is the only meaningful definition, then how do you explain the use of the word in physics? Is it the same or different? Do you only mean the use of force against persons? If so, where is the limit? I can (and indeed have to) use force to move others around sometimes without committing a crime (pushing a child around in a stroller, for example). What makes that unambiguously not a crime.
I hope you can see why I don't think adding the word "physical" explains anything about the basis for laws.
So, it's relevant because I disagreed with it, and now you're correcting me? That does not explain how it is relevant.
I always wonder how Randians and other arrested libertarians can be such allegedly strong proponents of freedom and at the same time accept authoritative definitions from the "master" so cravenly. It's plain that you think it is sufficient to parrot the words you learned. That's not how free people talk to one another.
No. I'm asking whether it might be. In any case, I don't see the point of focusing on "physical" force. Many laws impose fines or other penalties. As for greed, it's pretty plain that it can cause harm to others. We have some rules that seem designed to avoid the bad consequences of rampant greed: I'm thinking of anti-trust laws.
The state has a legitimate interest in preventing citizens from murdering one another. Therefore, laws against murder have a legal foundation. Does the state have a legitimate interest in preventing masturbation? I think not.
The hard question is whether the state has a legitimate interest in preventing excessive wealth and poverty. I think it may, but when you argue against people who do not think it does, you find that they have fundamentally different ideas about what the state is for.
Slashdot Mirror
Same point, less flamebaity: "a programmer's time costs more than a user's time."
I seem to agree. :-)
If developing for GNUSTEP is anything like developing for Cocoa, that would be great. But why, oh, why must everything OSS have a supposedly cute, but actually ugly, name like GORM? Or Postgre? It's not clever and it sounds like vomit.
Yes, especially since "sci fi" suggests an interesting pronunciation for "fiction."
Do you all still do the scream once a year? Morbid story, but an interesting practice, I thought. (Also, I hear the bridge to nowhere is gone.)
What did she write? "ur diner's redy. comin get it."? :-)
Just think. If they were developed ten years ago, they would have used tachyons. If they are developed in the next ten years, they will use nanobots. Projective fiction has its fashions, too.
Just listen to the damned theme song, and notice which attitudes they mock and which they endorse.
I think you're missing the point. Where there have been democratic (i.e., non-dictatorial) communist regimes, we in the U.S. and Europe have made sure they were put down quickly. So, if it "begs" any question, it's this: what is so scary about some tiny country having a communist economy, that we feel we have to destroy it and proclaim all forms of communism to be totalitarian?
Oh, I know. We (in the U.S. especially) have made sure of that. The message we've effectively sent is: vote in the communists, and we'll send in the death squads. Try reading up about Nicaragua, for one.
If you think dissent is equivalent to anti-Americanism, you don't deserve to call yourself an American. Please fuck off and die under the heel of some foreign dictator if you love fascism so much.
Since no one else seems to have said it, I will. What is most striking about this rather old video is how much is just like the Mac OS X of today: postscript display, system services, rtf for mail, network interoperability, the dock, interface builder, even something that looks very much like Pages. Pretty remarkable that 12 or so years later, it's still just coming together, and other OSs are still catching up.
The write-up says: "give a monkey ... and he'll ..." You have to admit there's a logical problem there, akin to saying "give me a screwdriver, and the phillips head will..." or "cut a fruit in half and your kitchen will smell like oranges." In linguistics, the way that the category of maleness is being used here is called "unmarked." You don't have to be a raving "feminazi" to understand the logic, smart boys.
So to those of you who fell for it and got your anti-feminist ire up so quickly, I say: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Would there be anything wrong with this sentence: give a human some spending money and he'll blow it on pictures of female humans?
I guess I'm objecting to the notion that being male is the norm.
You do need to point it out, if only because the way you phrased your description of "people's" motivation to give implied a distinction between people and Asians. It's not that I believe that you believe in such a distinction, but your words can easily give a different impression.
Need I point out that ... Asians are people, too!?
So when I fire up my chainsaw and cut through a tree, I become a criminal? When I pull weeds out of the ground, I am a criminal? Or what do you mean? What is "initiating" "physical" "force"? Isn't the word "physical" redundant here? You claim it's the only meaningful, unambiguous definition: if so, then why not just say "force"? If it is the only meaningful definition, then how do you explain the use of the word in physics? Is it the same or different? Do you only mean the use of force against persons? If so, where is the limit? I can (and indeed have to) use force to move others around sometimes without committing a crime (pushing a child around in a stroller, for example). What makes that unambiguously not a crime.
I hope you can see why I don't think adding the word "physical" explains anything about the basis for laws.
I always wonder how Randians and other arrested libertarians can be such allegedly strong proponents of freedom and at the same time accept authoritative definitions from the "master" so cravenly. It's plain that you think it is sufficient to parrot the words you learned. That's not how free people talk to one another.
And your little axiom is relevant how, again?
No. I'm asking whether it might be. In any case, I don't see the point of focusing on "physical" force. Many laws impose fines or other penalties. As for greed, it's pretty plain that it can cause harm to others. We have some rules that seem designed to avoid the bad consequences of rampant greed: I'm thinking of anti-trust laws.
The hard question is whether the state has a legitimate interest in preventing excessive wealth and poverty. I think it may, but when you argue against people who do not think it does, you find that they have fundamentally different ideas about what the state is for.
If it were a legitimate state interest, then we would need laws banning sloth and greed, too, and no one here in the U.S. really wants that.
He may be eminent and he may be a painter, but he's not an eminent painter.
OK. How are they interesting?
It was indeed a claws of my own invention, so it was purrfectly gentlemanly of you to make note of it. Thanks again fur everything.