I too am using one of the $200 Walmart boxes, but mine came with Lindows. Sounds like kinda the same thing, but the Lindows people weren't clever enough to keep you from installing stuff on your own.
Anyhow, I got tired of jumping through hoops and stuck SuSE on it. Still the best $200 I ever spent.
I might give it a shot, but I'd need a really compelling reason to actually shell out money for this. I hope they make it free for the first few versions at least, I'm pretty unkeen on this whole "paying for software" thing.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Oh sure, I make a post suggesting innocent people shouldn't be killed for convenience sake and I get modded a fucking -1 troll... this fellow starts espousing eugenics and he gets modded up for being insightful.
$10 says they "program" in HTML with Frontpage or GoLive
When Free Software FUDs other Free Software
on
XFree86 Alters License
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Jesus Christ, could you GPL zealots be a little more melodramatic? An advertising clause is an annoyance, nothing more.
All these idiotic posts claiming that this will be the end of Xfree, or that for some inscrutible reason all of the GPLed libraries can no longer be used with it. What rubbish! We routinely use GPLed libraries on Macs or Windows PCs, are you guys really trying to tell me the Microsoft EULA is compatible with the GPL but this new X license isn't?
The dumbest part is you people apparently linked to your GNU philosophy page without actually reading it. While RMS appears to find the BSD-style licenses quite personally annoying, nowhere within does it call for a copyleftist jihad against them, or claim that they are incompatible with the GPL in any way.
In fact, a quick glance at the philosophy pages find that he appears equally unhappy with the old X license, calling it a trap.
Honestly, you act like people shouldn't be allowed to license their own software however they want, is that really what you're trying to say?
-----------
Karma is slightly below max, mostly for saying things like "Maybe you shouldn't kill innocent people" when those people really, really wanted to kill innocent people
If we take the American Indians as an example, they did in fact get their 'property' stolen by expanding white settlement but much later they relied on the government through the legal system to obtain redress for the theft. Without government they would still have had their land (theirs by right of first possession) stolen but they would have had no redress against the thiefs unless they had won the war.
Considering that the US government was primarily responsible for the taking of that property in the first place, not to mention murdering millions of them, I'm not sure the pittance of a redress they gave them later really could be seen as a net benefit.
Without a generally accepted system of recognition and enforcement of property rights (sometimes called a government) stealing is at best a moral concept. That's a pretty vague definition of "government", but it seems to me the fact that 'stealing is wrong' as a moral concept is a lot more important than stealing being wrong as a legal concept (particularly since the biggest thieves have historically also been governments, and therefore get to define the legal concepts, not to mention generally making themselves above them in the first place).
The sad thing is, a lot of these people couldn't get what they want done in India for the price they're asking either. They expect custom designed software to cost more or less what some retail shrinkwrap box would.
I mean, every unemployed software developer I know still freelance codes to make ends meet (at least once unemployment runs out).
But making ends meet and having a strong business where you're honestly "getting ahead in the world" are two very distinct things. Of all the people I know trying this, few were able to come up with more than $10,000 over the last 12 months, and some of us considerably less than that.
Finding paying customers for software isn't easy (at least those willing to pay what the software is worth). I often go 3-4 weeks without anything profitable to do... and get called by someone who wants a 20-30 hour job to cost them like $50.
Since the "potential holders" have already precluded themselves from making governmental claims, I'd guess I'm safe.
I know from a practical position land can be stolen any time you're not there (or sometimes even if you are there, see American Indian tribes for examples), but it seems like once a property is claimed / is being used, the person who comes along later and takes it away is stealing.
Indeed, it actually already was/is a problem in that regard.
I did some computer repair work for an Iraqi immigrant awhile back, and he said he'd called basically every major repair shop in town and they all refused the job. He said one of them specifically told him they were concerned with "supporting Terrorism" by fixing his computers, and another tried to get him to pay double their normal rate, and make the transaction totally anonymous (no receipt) so it couldn't be traced to them.
All this for some poor immigrant trying to run a small grocery and produce store.
Actually, after they signed the Outer Space Treaty it doesn't seem like they could've logically signed the Moon Treaty anymore. If governments can't have claims in space where would they get the authority to stop individuals from doing so in the first place? Seems kind of like the US trying to outlaw gambling in international waters.
The moon is bigger than you may have figured. Its well larger than previous generations though, but they only believed it was about the size of a bigga pizza pie.
Removing 1e-10 percent of the moons mass would not change its gravitational force significantly.
Employer had a sign out front which claimed we took Charter Bills... but we didn't. Just SBC and Consumers Energy.
One day I sat in that little cube with the big bullet proof glass window all day and sold two money orders... that was it... and it was to the same people.
Coincidentally enough, it later became my best job ever. Tired of using dialup access, the employer got a DSL line. Then I had a day where I only sold two money orders and spent the rest of the day here.
" It's actually just a test for the true roll-out, which will prevent the reproduction and distribution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights."
I find that highly doubtful, as it would assume those initiating this roll-out were aware of the existance of a Bill of Rights to begin with, a highly dubious proposition.
Before i get into you other points, what type of governmental system are you proposing that we should have?
I'm proposing that I should have a system that I'm comfortable with, and you should have a system you're comfortable with. The term is "panarchism".
Those who don't want to pay taxes just don't,
Exactly.
and aren't allowed to drive on puclic roads or use public utilities,
Fair enough, but only so long as you don't prohibit competing solutions from popping up.
and if anyone wants to rob them or shoot them the police don't get involved? Right. But these people would be allowed to hire outside protection if they so chose. Or defen themselves.
Not sure what the proper response in the event of a war should be. It would be hard to let the enemy selectively invade the property of those who don't pay taxes. Not our problem. How you deal with your enemies is not my responsibility, and I don't want to have anything to do with paying for it, or being conscripted to fight. Just leave me out of it and let me worry about my own property.
Incidentally, "my own property" is the major thing wrong with the "love it or leave it" idea. I own property, some of which I can't take with me when leaving... nontheless it is my property. Why should I be forced to part with it? I agree that for the sake of expediency its the way to go, but that moral question still bugs the hell out of me.
The other thing wrong, of course, is "go where". The ability to leave a country is virtually meaningless if one cannot find an alternative elsewhere. Getting permission to even live in another country, let alone work there, is exceedingly difficult. Indeed, the only places that don't require someone elses' permission to enter are also illegal for me to go to, so I guess you could say that yes, I am prohibited from leaving.
Believe me though, leaving has been foremost in my mind of late, and I've been doing extensive investigation into where to go, how to get there, and what I will do then. Certain likeminded friends of mine have even been in contact with the Niuean government hoping that after the typhoon admission and legal residency and property rights would be more forthcoming.
If all else fails, the sun will expand and destroy the earth in a few billion years. It is not "statistically likely" it is a certainity as much as anything in life can possibly be certain.
I don't know that I'd classify the sun as "an asteroid or something of that nature" but lets not quibble.
You seem to be confusing legality and morality. Theft is a legal term.
Ummm... no it isn't. It has a legal context, but there are plenty of definitions of theft which do not reference "what is legal". Try a dictionary... you might like it.
What the government does with the money may or may not be morral, but the way they got it was legal,
Since the government itself gets to decide what's legal that seems a pisspoor way to determine the morality of a thing.I've provided previous examples, but "if you don't like it, get out" is a logical fallacy that has had holes shot into it a dozen times, so I don't feel like rehashing tired old arguments.
It's generally accepted that paying money for services is not immoral.
Argumentum ad populum. Somebody should put all these fallacies in a book. It was generally accepted 300 years ago that slavery was not immoral, did that justify it?
At any rate, the statement is flawed. It is not paying money for a service that is immoral, its stealing money and trying to justify it by providing a service that is immoral.
The US government is paid money to give services. Everyone in the country benefits from the services, so consenting to pay the taxes is required to live here. You don't like it? Stop immorally and illegally ripping off the government and leave. An argument that is not only tired and predictable, but dead wrong. The mafia could use the identical argument to justify "providing protection" to everybody in the neighborhood. Don't like it? Move.
Sorry, that's not the way democracy works, sorry. Putting aside for the moment the legal complications in the system (constitutional rights, 2/3rd majortiy issues, representative democracy, etc) if 51% of the people want things a certain way, that's the way it goes.
That says nothing about the morality of the situation. Can you even talk about that or is rehashed civics lessons all you've got left?
Again, pretending for the moment we don't have the constitutional rights intended to prevent abuse of the system, if 51% of the people think it should be illegal to analy rape people with wolves, then it's illegal
And if only 49% think it should be, it magically stays legal and we have tens of millions of people like you arguing that its therefore justified. Its amazing how easy it is for you to take consent totally out of the equation and just replace it with "what the majority wants" (even if the majority happens to be only the majority of those that the remaining majority feel should be allowed to vote)
Don't want to be raped? Move.
But then that brings us to yet another interesting caveat. What about if 51% of the people decide I shouldn't be able to leave? Its happened before, often in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Yikes.
:)
So they combined the low, low cost of Windows with the user friendliness and acceptability of Linux, sounds like a winning combo.
I too am using one of the $200 Walmart boxes, but mine came with Lindows. Sounds like kinda the same thing, but the Lindows people weren't clever enough to keep you from installing stuff on your own. Anyhow, I got tired of jumping through hoops and stuck SuSE on it. Still the best $200 I ever spent.
I might give it a shot, but I'd need a really compelling reason to actually shell out money for this. I hope they make it free for the first few versions at least, I'm pretty unkeen on this whole "paying for software" thing.
Oh sure, I make a post suggesting innocent people shouldn't be killed for convenience sake and I get modded a fucking -1 troll... this fellow starts espousing eugenics and he gets modded up for being insightful.
$10 says they "program" in HTML with Frontpage or GoLive
Jesus Christ, could you GPL zealots be a little more melodramatic? An advertising clause is an annoyance, nothing more.
All these idiotic posts claiming that this will be the end of Xfree, or that for some inscrutible reason all of the GPLed libraries can no longer be used with it. What rubbish! We routinely use GPLed libraries on Macs or Windows PCs, are you guys really trying to tell me the Microsoft EULA is compatible with the GPL but this new X license isn't?
The dumbest part is you people apparently linked to your GNU philosophy page without actually reading it. While RMS appears to find the BSD-style licenses quite personally annoying, nowhere within does it call for a copyleftist jihad against them, or claim that they are incompatible with the GPL in any way.
In fact, a quick glance at the philosophy pages find that he appears equally unhappy with the old X license, calling it a trap.
Honestly, you act like people shouldn't be allowed to license their own software however they want, is that really what you're trying to say?
-----------
Karma is slightly below max, mostly for saying things like "Maybe you shouldn't kill innocent people" when those people really, really wanted to kill innocent people
If we take the American Indians as an example, they did in fact get their 'property' stolen by expanding white settlement but much later they relied on the government through the legal system to obtain redress for the theft. Without government they would still have had their land (theirs by right of first possession) stolen but they would have had no redress against the thiefs unless they had won the war.
Considering that the US government was primarily responsible for the taking of that property in the first place, not to mention murdering millions of them, I'm not sure the pittance of a redress they gave them later really could be seen as a net benefit.
Without a generally accepted system of recognition and enforcement of property rights (sometimes called a government) stealing is at best a moral concept.
That's a pretty vague definition of "government", but it seems to me the fact that 'stealing is wrong' as a moral concept is a lot more important than stealing being wrong as a legal concept (particularly since the biggest thieves have historically also been governments, and therefore get to define the legal concepts, not to mention generally making themselves above them in the first place).
The sad thing is, a lot of these people couldn't get what they want done in India for the price they're asking either. They expect custom designed software to cost more or less what some retail shrinkwrap box would.
Is anybody really NOT doing this?
I mean, every unemployed software developer I know still freelance codes to make ends meet (at least once unemployment runs out).
But making ends meet and having a strong business where you're honestly "getting ahead in the world" are two very distinct things. Of all the people I know trying this, few were able to come up with more than $10,000 over the last 12 months, and some of us considerably less than that.
Finding paying customers for software isn't easy (at least those willing to pay what the software is worth). I often go 3-4 weeks without anything profitable to do... and get called by someone who wants a 20-30 hour job to cost them like $50.
Since the "potential holders" have already precluded themselves from making governmental claims, I'd guess I'm safe.
I know from a practical position land can be stolen any time you're not there (or sometimes even if you are there, see American Indian tribes for examples), but it seems like once a property is claimed / is being used, the person who comes along later and takes it away is stealing.
Government is not a prerequisite for property.
Indeed, it actually already was/is a problem in that regard.
I did some computer repair work for an Iraqi immigrant awhile back, and he said he'd called basically every major repair shop in town and they all refused the job. He said one of them specifically told him they were concerned with "supporting Terrorism" by fixing his computers, and another tried to get him to pay double their normal rate, and make the transaction totally anonymous (no receipt) so it couldn't be traced to them.
All this for some poor immigrant trying to run a small grocery and produce store.
Ask that question again when the bombs are falling on Finland :)
Don't forget that on top of IPO money they got a decent sum from MS out of the Digital Research lawsuits.
I had a whole bunch of Tiger Electronic handheld games back then. Game and Watch was around too, but I never had any.
The big popular thing was fairly large arcade style games that were shaped like a regular standup arcade system.
Ahh... excellent info.
Actually, after they signed the Outer Space Treaty it doesn't seem like they could've logically signed the Moon Treaty anymore. If governments can't have claims in space where would they get the authority to stop individuals from doing so in the first place? Seems kind of like the US trying to outlaw gambling in international waters.
Actually its more you can't just make shit up.
That's more what it is...
Until the Moonish government says I can't own property on the moon, I can. Don't like it? Lets see you stop me.
Umm.... I don't recall signing that treaty.
Besides, if you don't think you or anyone else owns it to begin with, how can it be stealing?
The moon is bigger than you may have figured. Its well larger than previous generations though, but they only believed it was about the size of a bigga pizza pie.
Removing 1e-10 percent of the moons mass would not change its gravitational force significantly.
Running a Bill Payment Center.
no heat, except for the computers.
Employer had a sign out front which claimed we took Charter Bills... but we didn't. Just SBC and Consumers Energy.
One day I sat in that little cube with the big bullet proof glass window all day and sold two money orders... that was it... and it was to the same people.
Coincidentally enough, it later became my best job ever. Tired of using dialup access, the employer got a DSL line. Then I had a day where I only sold two money orders and spent the rest of the day here.
" It's actually just a test for the true roll-out, which will prevent the reproduction and distribution of the Constitution and Bill of Rights."
I find that highly doubtful, as it would assume those initiating this roll-out were aware of the existance of a Bill of Rights to begin with, a highly dubious proposition.
Now there's a Machiavellian countenance...
oooh! A sextet of ale!
Before i get into you other points, what type of governmental system are you proposing that we should have?
I'm proposing that I should have a system that I'm comfortable with, and you should have a system you're comfortable with. The term is "panarchism".
Those who don't want to pay taxes just don't,
Exactly.
and aren't allowed to drive on puclic roads or use public utilities,
Fair enough, but only so long as you don't prohibit competing solutions from popping up.
and if anyone wants to rob them or shoot them the police don't get involved?
Right. But these people would be allowed to hire outside protection if they so chose. Or defen themselves.
Not sure what the proper response in the event of a war should be. It would be hard to let the enemy selectively invade the property of those who don't pay taxes.
Not our problem. How you deal with your enemies is not my responsibility, and I don't want to have anything to do with paying for it, or being conscripted to fight. Just leave me out of it and let me worry about my own property.
Incidentally, "my own property" is the major thing wrong with the "love it or leave it" idea. I own property, some of which I can't take with me when leaving... nontheless it is my property. Why should I be forced to part with it? I agree that for the sake of expediency its the way to go, but that moral question still bugs the hell out of me.
The other thing wrong, of course, is "go where". The ability to leave a country is virtually meaningless if one cannot find an alternative elsewhere. Getting permission to even live in another country, let alone work there, is exceedingly difficult. Indeed, the only places that don't require someone elses' permission to enter are also illegal for me to go to, so I guess you could say that yes, I am prohibited from leaving.
Believe me though, leaving has been foremost in my mind of late, and I've been doing extensive investigation into where to go, how to get there, and what I will do then. Certain likeminded friends of mine have even been in contact with the Niuean government hoping that after the typhoon admission and legal residency and property rights would be more forthcoming.
If all else fails, the sun will expand and destroy the earth in a few billion years. It is not "statistically likely" it is a certainity as much as anything in life can possibly be certain.
I don't know that I'd classify the sun as "an asteroid or something of that nature" but lets not quibble.
You seem to be confusing legality and morality. Theft is a legal term.
Ummm... no it isn't. It has a legal context, but there are plenty of definitions of theft which do not reference "what is legal". Try a dictionary... you might like it.
What the government does with the money may or may not be morral, but the way they got it was legal,
Since the government itself gets to decide what's legal that seems a pisspoor way to determine the morality of a thing.I've provided previous examples, but "if you don't like it, get out" is a logical fallacy that has had holes shot into it a dozen times, so I don't feel like rehashing tired old arguments.
It's generally accepted that paying money for services is not immoral.
Argumentum ad populum. Somebody should put all these fallacies in a book. It was generally accepted 300 years ago that slavery was not immoral, did that justify it?
At any rate, the statement is flawed. It is not paying money for a service that is immoral, its stealing money and trying to justify it by providing a service that is immoral.
The US government is paid money to give services. Everyone in the country benefits from the services, so consenting to pay the taxes is required to live here. You don't like it? Stop immorally and illegally ripping off the government and leave.
An argument that is not only tired and predictable, but dead wrong. The mafia could use the identical argument to justify "providing protection" to everybody in the neighborhood. Don't like it? Move.
Sorry, that's not the way democracy works, sorry. Putting aside for the moment the legal complications in the system (constitutional rights, 2/3rd majortiy issues, representative democracy, etc) if 51% of the people want things a certain way, that's the way it goes.
That says nothing about the morality of the situation. Can you even talk about that or is rehashed civics lessons all you've got left?
Again, pretending for the moment we don't have the constitutional rights intended to prevent abuse of the system, if 51% of the people think it should be illegal to analy rape people with wolves, then it's illegal
And if only 49% think it should be, it magically stays legal and we have tens of millions of people like you arguing that its therefore justified. Its amazing how easy it is for you to take consent totally out of the equation and just replace it with "what the majority wants" (even if the majority happens to be only the majority of those that the remaining majority feel should be allowed to vote)
Don't want to be raped? Move.
But then that brings us to yet another interesting caveat. What about if 51% of the people decide I shouldn't be able to leave? Its happened before, often in fact.
yes.