I'm frustrated with Google too, but over Android? When I finally switched from iPhone to Android it was amazing. I am in control of my phone now. I can do what I want how I want. What would you replace Android with?
You didn't cite anything, so you haven't proven your "facts."
But even if Linux did have "dozens more" published vulnerabilities than NT, that's a very small margin as a percentage.
On top of that, you're assuming that that proves anything. We all know the NT kernel has many unknown, unpublished vulnerabilities. Some of them may never be published because they may only be discovered by blackhats. On the other hand, Linux's source can be examined by anyone and patched in a matter of hours by major distros, compared to days or weeks or months by Microsoft.
I don't think Windows is in any way prettier than Linux. Uncustomizable UI, single-pixel fonts everywhere, white, white, white windows and dialogs...I could go on. Linux, on the other hand, can be themed to be as pretty or ugly as you desire. Mine looks better than Windows or OSX.
I've been using Linux for a long time. Editing config files is a must for everyone.
Unless: 1) You own a computer with an exactly perfectly supported hardware configuration (unlikely)
Actually it's very likely.
2) You never wish to install your own/non-package-managed programs
Most users probably won't. If they do, WINE doesn't require editing config files, and neither does unzipping a.tgz of a binary build and double-clicking the executable, just like in Windows.
3) The default network configuration is perfect (and the NetworkManager/control panel hasn't screwed it up already)
This is the closest you get to truth, but even then, I haven't had to edit a conf file for a NetworkManager problem in a very long time. This is basically a solved problem. It's certainly no worse than Windows.
4) There are no bugs in your distro to work around
This is so broad and vague that it's meaningless. As if Windows has no bugs to work around!
5) Gnome never poops on your configuration files
Why are you using GNOME? "Well there's your problem!"
1) Big distros need to get together and spend a lot of time on configuration management and configuration tools.
Basically done. e.g. KDE's system-settings is as good as OS X's System Configuration.
2) Store all config in a locally run light SQL server. The access is a local XML socket. This makes it really easy to design all sorts of neat tools to manipulate the machine's configuration.
Yeah, let's store simple configuration in a binary file only accessible through special software, and while we're at it let's put XML in the way! That'll fix it! Dude, you destroyed any credibility you had by advocating this.
In a perfect world your way might work. But this world isn't perfect. We don't have to--and shouldn't--trust our representatives. They routinely sell out to lobbyists and then turn around and brag about supposed efficiencies in their campaigns. The whole point of the American governmental system was that government is fundamentally untrustworthy, that's why we have checks and balances and elections. Those don't mean that the system is trustworthy, just that it's better than it would be otherwise.
I'm not arguing for zero taxes--that would require zero government or an all-volunteer government, neither of which is a good idea. I'm arguing for minimal taxes and small government.
Are you daft? Do you not understand that it is not racist to point out the fact that many Indian tech support representatives are difficult for native English speakers to understand? If I tried to speak their native language, they'd probably find me hard to understand too. That's not racism! Think for yourself!
All of these arguments are moot because they rely on two presuppositions:
1: That a Creator being would choose to make his creations as perfect as possible. He might have other goals in mind. Such a being would be so far above us in knowledge and wisdom that we couldn't possibly comprehend all of his rationales.
2. That we know what would be perfect. A Creator being would be so far above us that it's laughable to even think that we could make such a judgment objectively or accurately. Can you imagine knowing and comprehending every particle in the universe simultaneously? Do you know what it would be like?
Because of those two presuppositions, it's all speculation, and it proves nothing.
You're full of speculation. And you ignore the fact that sound travels beyond property lines. Basically, you don't seem to care how your actions affect others. And you encourage suicide. I'd say you're the one who needs to stop talking.
Even if money were removed from politics, that wouldn't make all taxes acceptable, nor would it make government efficient. The fundamental principles of determining your own destiny and pursuing your own happiness (which may very well include helping others) with your own resources remain, regardless of how corrupt government may be.
And so it is quite easy to argue that being anti-tax does help, even if politics weren't influenced by money.
I don't know what other forums he posts on, but that doesn't prove anything anyway, since you could be posting under an alias. I've long suspected APK of schizophrenia, and I've seen him post in relatively normal styles many times, the only giveaways being his replying to himself and using some key phrases. So I don't think you've proven you're not him.;) In fact, your mentioning "use of a hosts file in a layered security process" and it intriguing you makes me rather suspicious, because that sounds like the kinds of things he says. And your unusual interest in him and his ideas is also highly irregular. So...
It's not racism to point out that tech support outsourced to India provided to American customers is generally poor, mostly because of language issues. Repeat after me: that is not racism.
Jesse Jackson loves (and makes a living on) people like you.
To be honest, the man was fined for not complying with gun and ammo ownership laws, not for shooting the dogs. He probably knew about the D.C. gun laws and chose to break them. He lived in VA before and is moving to MD. Whether D.C.'s gun laws are right or Constitutional is another matter, but if the man's unregistered firearms had been discovered outside of his shooting the dogs, he'd still be in trouble--and maybe even more, since he wouldn't have been a hero.
Your argument is a non sequitur. You assert that he's wrong in saying that people who want to ban guns just want to ban guns, but you didn't show how he is wrong. You said that motive is involved--so what? The point remains, and I would argue is true: these people do just want to ban guns. Their underlying motive may be safety from violence, but that's beside the point: they will not be satisfied with any solution other than banning guns.
And I would argue that it is indeed irrational! These people want to make guns illegal, but those who commit crimes with guns are breaking the law already! In what world is it rational to think that criminals will obey a law?! No, we need to call this for exactly what it is: irrational, emotional reactionism.
"Oh, but they'll obey this one!" Or, "Oh, but this law will make it impossible for them to get guns at all!" Really? I refer you to this very Slashdot article. How long until 3D printers are banned? How long until manufacturing anything requires a license?
And I haven't even mentioned obvious issues like police response time.
The fundamental issue is much deeper than guns or crime or safety: it's the issue of personal responsibility vs. government responsibility. It's no coincidence that most pro-gun people are also in favor of smaller government, and most anti-gun people are in favor of more and more government. That is why this issue will never go away, because it's based on a fundamental disagreement, and the gap does not seem to be narrowing.
The solution to the deeper issue is embedded in the name of our nation: the United States of America. Return power to the States and let people live and vote in a state which reflects their values. Californians can live in California and Texans can live in Texas, and everyone in between can live in between. When people change their minds, they can vote or move.
But firearms are a Constitutional right, and that cannot be delegated to or restricted by the States. If you don't like that, amend the Constitution.
I hope you're joking. If you're not, you're a misandrist, which is just as evil as misogyny, but more socially acceptable because of our messed-up society.
But I won't bother to argue the sex angle. Rather, you must show that male criminals will obey laws forbidding their gun ownership. Unlikely, since they are criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm frustrated with Google too, but over Android? When I finally switched from iPhone to Android it was amazing. I am in control of my phone now. I can do what I want how I want. What would you replace Android with?
...and it's trying Linux again...
All software has bugs.
Ubuntu gives you regular updates.
Microsoft give you updates when they feel like it.
You didn't cite anything, so you haven't proven your "facts."
But even if Linux did have "dozens more" published vulnerabilities than NT, that's a very small margin as a percentage.
On top of that, you're assuming that that proves anything. We all know the NT kernel has many unknown, unpublished vulnerabilities. Some of them may never be published because they may only be discovered by blackhats. On the other hand, Linux's source can be examined by anyone and patched in a matter of hours by major distros, compared to days or weeks or months by Microsoft.
I don't think Windows is in any way prettier than Linux. Uncustomizable UI, single-pixel fonts everywhere, white, white, white windows and dialogs...I could go on. Linux, on the other hand, can be themed to be as pretty or ugly as you desire. Mine looks better than Windows or OSX.
No no no.
I've been using Linux for a long time. Editing config files is a must for everyone.
Unless:
1) You own a computer with an exactly perfectly supported hardware configuration (unlikely)
Actually it's very likely.
2) You never wish to install your own/non-package-managed programs
Most users probably won't. If they do, WINE doesn't require editing config files, and neither does unzipping a .tgz of a binary build and double-clicking the executable, just like in Windows.
3) The default network configuration is perfect (and the NetworkManager/control panel hasn't screwed it up already)
This is the closest you get to truth, but even then, I haven't had to edit a conf file for a NetworkManager problem in a very long time. This is basically a solved problem. It's certainly no worse than Windows.
4) There are no bugs in your distro to work around
This is so broad and vague that it's meaningless. As if Windows has no bugs to work around!
5) Gnome never poops on your configuration files
Why are you using GNOME? "Well there's your problem!"
1) Big distros need to get together and spend a lot of time on configuration management and configuration tools.
Basically done. e.g. KDE's system-settings is as good as OS X's System Configuration.
2) Store all config in a locally run light SQL server. The access is a local XML socket. This makes it really easy to design all sorts of neat tools to manipulate the machine's configuration.
Yeah, let's store simple configuration in a binary file only accessible through special software, and while we're at it let's put XML in the way! That'll fix it! Dude, you destroyed any credibility you had by advocating this.
1. Run Synaptic (or whatever GUI package manager).
2. Install nvidia driver package.
3. Log out.
4. Log in.
No xorg.conf editing required. That hasn't been necessary for years.
Please don't call that an invention.
In a perfect world your way might work. But this world isn't perfect. We don't have to--and shouldn't--trust our representatives. They routinely sell out to lobbyists and then turn around and brag about supposed efficiencies in their campaigns. The whole point of the American governmental system was that government is fundamentally untrustworthy, that's why we have checks and balances and elections. Those don't mean that the system is trustworthy, just that it's better than it would be otherwise.
I'm not arguing for zero taxes--that would require zero government or an all-volunteer government, neither of which is a good idea. I'm arguing for minimal taxes and small government.
Are you daft? Do you not understand that it is not racist to point out the fact that many Indian tech support representatives are difficult for native English speakers to understand? If I tried to speak their native language, they'd probably find me hard to understand too. That's not racism! Think for yourself!
Ah, "Overrated," a powerful argument, indeed!
"I disagree with them, therefore they are mentally ill."
All of these arguments are moot because they rely on two presuppositions:
1: That a Creator being would choose to make his creations as perfect as possible. He might have other goals in mind. Such a being would be so far above us in knowledge and wisdom that we couldn't possibly comprehend all of his rationales.
2. That we know what would be perfect. A Creator being would be so far above us that it's laughable to even think that we could make such a judgment objectively or accurately. Can you imagine knowing and comprehending every particle in the universe simultaneously? Do you know what it would be like?
Because of those two presuppositions, it's all speculation, and it proves nothing.
Do you think the acidity kept down bacteria in your mouth? Or did you compensate for the pop by eating other things?
You're full of speculation. And you ignore the fact that sound travels beyond property lines. Basically, you don't seem to care how your actions affect others. And you encourage suicide. I'd say you're the one who needs to stop talking.
Even if money were removed from politics, that wouldn't make all taxes acceptable, nor would it make government efficient. The fundamental principles of determining your own destiny and pursuing your own happiness (which may very well include helping others) with your own resources remain, regardless of how corrupt government may be.
And so it is quite easy to argue that being anti-tax does help, even if politics weren't influenced by money.
I don't know what other forums he posts on, but that doesn't prove anything anyway, since you could be posting under an alias. I've long suspected APK of schizophrenia, and I've seen him post in relatively normal styles many times, the only giveaways being his replying to himself and using some key phrases. So I don't think you've proven you're not him. ;) In fact, your mentioning "use of a hosts file in a layered security process" and it intriguing you makes me rather suspicious, because that sounds like the kinds of things he says. And your unusual interest in him and his ideas is also highly irregular. So...
Or else what?
I didn't claim to be able to prove that they exist, either. You're projecting onto me.
What I'm claiming is that we cannot prove either way, so the most you can reasonably say is that you don't know.
I can read fine. I just don't think taxes are a big part of the problem. Spending is. Attitudes of entitlement are another part.
I think you shouldn't vote for anyone who leases evil.
Where are my mod points...
It's not racism to point out that tech support outsourced to India provided to American customers is generally poor, mostly because of language issues. Repeat after me: that is not racism.
Jesse Jackson loves (and makes a living on) people like you.
To be honest, the man was fined for not complying with gun and ammo ownership laws, not for shooting the dogs. He probably knew about the D.C. gun laws and chose to break them. He lived in VA before and is moving to MD. Whether D.C.'s gun laws are right or Constitutional is another matter, but if the man's unregistered firearms had been discovered outside of his shooting the dogs, he'd still be in trouble--and maybe even more, since he wouldn't have been a hero.
Your argument is a non sequitur. You assert that he's wrong in saying that people who want to ban guns just want to ban guns, but you didn't show how he is wrong. You said that motive is involved--so what? The point remains, and I would argue is true: these people do just want to ban guns. Their underlying motive may be safety from violence, but that's beside the point: they will not be satisfied with any solution other than banning guns.
And I would argue that it is indeed irrational! These people want to make guns illegal, but those who commit crimes with guns are breaking the law already! In what world is it rational to think that criminals will obey a law?! No, we need to call this for exactly what it is: irrational, emotional reactionism.
"Oh, but they'll obey this one!" Or, "Oh, but this law will make it impossible for them to get guns at all!" Really? I refer you to this very Slashdot article. How long until 3D printers are banned? How long until manufacturing anything requires a license?
And I haven't even mentioned obvious issues like police response time.
The fundamental issue is much deeper than guns or crime or safety: it's the issue of personal responsibility vs. government responsibility. It's no coincidence that most pro-gun people are also in favor of smaller government, and most anti-gun people are in favor of more and more government. That is why this issue will never go away, because it's based on a fundamental disagreement, and the gap does not seem to be narrowing.
The solution to the deeper issue is embedded in the name of our nation: the United States of America. Return power to the States and let people live and vote in a state which reflects their values. Californians can live in California and Texans can live in Texas, and everyone in between can live in between. When people change their minds, they can vote or move.
But firearms are a Constitutional right, and that cannot be delegated to or restricted by the States. If you don't like that, amend the Constitution.
I hope you're joking. If you're not, you're a misandrist, which is just as evil as misogyny, but more socially acceptable because of our messed-up society.
But I won't bother to argue the sex angle. Rather, you must show that male criminals will obey laws forbidding their gun ownership. Unlikely, since they are criminals.
Some people...