It runs like a mutt on Windows anyways compared to running it on Linux. I don't see anyone switching to PostgreSQL on Windows as a platform anytime soon.
Secular jews are some of the smartest, funniest and most loyal friends I've got, and anyone who judges their people by their race should be condemned for it.
Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.
They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.
Attempting to keep people from having access is wrong. Copyright is wrong. People who try to enforce it are wrong. People who help pirates are heros, people who try to stop them are villians. Copyright enforcement is an aggressive act.
There are those whose means far exceed their demand for software and media, they would rather drop a couple hundred dollars on something than fuck around with serial sites in the first place. These people don't see any problem with copyright because it doesn't cause them any. There aren't very many of these people, but they do make all the laws.
There are those who cannot afford all the software and media they would like and would rather break the laws than do without just because of the law.
Finally, there are those who cannot afford all the software and media they would like, but are afraid of getting caught, so they don't copy and do without.
Copyright enforcement regimes don't manufacture wealth. They actually prevent its creation by forcing others to do without needlessly.
There are two approaches to setting usability goals.
One goal is to make the system as easy as possible for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to use.
This approach is best for transient users, such as customers buying big ticket items that won't frequently patronize the site.
It's also best when you're presenting internal use stuff to executive clients, because they're usually far removed from the day to day operations of the company and will not be the "power users" of the software.
Artists are usually more adept at designing for this goal, because the demands of their job require that they be more closely in tune with other people than the next person.
The other goal is to make use of the system as efficient as possible for someone who has taken the time to learn it inside out. I think of it as "make it as easy as possible for someone who has already completed each task three times".
This is the best approach for expert systems where the person can be expected to dedicate several hours of each day to using it as part of their job, and it's reasonable to expect them to work at learning.
It's also best when you want to make it easy for frequently returning customers to be impulse-sold, like Amazon.
Propeller heads are usually more adept at designing for this goal, because the demands of their job require that they be more closely in tune with the underlying system.
Most cases end up with some degree of compromise between the two goals, some duplication of user interface into "Expert Mode" and "Novice Mode", and some clutter in the interface to bridge the gap.
That would be Amazon.
Running from a difficult situation doesn't mean you've succeeded. Your mother abandoned her spouse and left him to sink into a hole of despair. When people get married and have children, they have a lifelong responsibility to each other.
He had a stepmother. Which means broken home. Which means his parents already failed him before stepmother got on the scene. Which was most likely "not their fault" either, just like my kid being from a broken home is of course not my fault either, but society's fault, or Jesus's fault, or something. Which is also completely irrelevant to the "how do we stop kids from killing people" problem.
He got himself kicked out of every group he was in, and was left to stew into something dangerous. Of course, the fact that he was permitted to be kicked out, that the other children and the adults in supervision of every social group removed the one they didn't like so universally that he was allowed to do this to himself, none of this is the parents fault or our fault. We can't be expected to make everyone play together, it's a free country. Shame how he done gone went and killt one of us, ain't it hoss?
Guess we better just lock him up with all the others. And bury the dead guy of course. Shame there wasn't ever anything that coulda been done different, but I guess he was just born bad.
Personally, I think taking a disturbed and disconnected kid and sticking him in solitary confinement for long periods of time probably had a lot to do with how he ended up emotionally disconnected enough from other people to kill one. Which is not to say that it's the fault of parents at their wits end trying anything and everything.
If you want to socialize someone, you surround them with happy, friendly, non threatening people and let them form connections, you don't lock them in a box except when they're at school. Counseling is also bullshit in this situation. You can't dictate advice to someone who isn't listening.
If I had a son that acted like this, my thoughts would drift towards putting him in band camp or dance class or something where he's forced to hang out with a bunch of chicks and artists. Or some sort of volunteer work where he can see what he's doing helping the people he's interacting with. Stuff that would force him to connect to people and give him practical experience in interacting with them positively.
Pussy, embarrassing, heartstrings kind of stuff that he would most likely hate way more than being left alone in his room, when you get down to it.
Kind of like the "finding religion" experience, except without the brainwashing etc..
Of course the customers just pay more. If they're dealing with a huge corporation that can absorb all these losses, raise their rates and have customers with no option but to return.
Of course, if you run your own business making and selling high ticket items, and you need the money from your sales to buy supplies and cover your cost, it's not the same.
You can't double the cost of what you sell next to recoup the loss when someone rips you off on one of those high ticket items, no one would buy it.
This treatment of fraud helps big existing players because when big players get stung by this injustice, they roll it off to the trapped customers, but when small players get stung, they fold or suck it up out of their personal funds.
We don't control our oil, gas or even our hydro anymore thanx to the FTAA
Not if we just ignore the free trade agreement. The US does, or did you not notice that even after the settlement, they still ripped us off over a billion dollars just on the softwood lumber dispute alone.
We can do anything we want. Canada could turn out the lights on the entire northern united states tomorrow if we wanted, and if they fucked with us the way they did with Iraq, we wouldn't need nukes, we could adulterate their water supplies at the border and kill half their population in a week. We have geography on our side.
They had a feature on CBC earlier about how Canada is now a terrorist target because we supply oil to the US war machine. They have apparently beefed up security on our oil sand facilities.
I'll be getting in touch with my MP to let them know that I feel that we are indeed supplying oil to an aggressive rogue nation, just like the terrorists say, and that I would rather we keep our oil for ourselves.
Being that it's a finite resource we will need for ourselves, being that we're putting our nation at risk by selling it, being that we sully our national pride and international reputation by selling it to the US, it really would be wise for our government to keep it in the country.
It's most likely not intended to universally block all access to social networking sites. There are, after all, internet cafes and home internet access available.
It's most likely intended to give the librarian the authority to tell someone who is using the library computers to surf myspace.com to get off the computer and let someone waiting to do their homework have it.
I'm not sure how the vorbis example is any different than the network stack or giflib. In any case, the BSD licence explicitly allows inclusion in proprietary software that is its advantage in the eyes of its supporters. The disadvantage is that it has no protection against secret embrace-and-extend modifications.
I'm building a super-cool-music-player.
It plays all sorts of formats.
I have been working on it for a long time.
It really is very good, and a lot of people are going to use it.
I have no intention whatsoever of releasing it under the GPL.
It's going ahead regardless of if it has your codec in it or not, and your codec has too little market penetration for me to dedicate time to writing code to support it myself.
The codec with a BSD implementation released gets supported. The GPL'd one does not.
If you're more interested in seeing media with your codec in it than making other peoples software free, the BSD licence works better.
Privacy is more about safety from prejudice than anything else. The important thing is that everyone loses it at once, no one has to go first, and everyone gets equal access.
Slashdot Mirror
It runs like a mutt on Windows anyways compared to running it on Linux. I don't see anyone switching to PostgreSQL on Windows as a platform anytime soon.
Secular jews are some of the smartest, funniest and most loyal friends I've got, and anyone who judges their people by their race should be condemned for it.
Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.
They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.
The Prince of Persia is right.
He was being sarcastic. He's trying to say that the dangerous religous fundimentalists are in the US. And of course, he's right.
I think this is good. I think having nukes in Iran would do great things for peace in the middle east.
Attempting to keep people from having access is wrong. Copyright is wrong. People who try to enforce it are wrong. People who help pirates are heros, people who try to stop them are villians. Copyright enforcement is an aggressive act.
I just finished watching Cherry 2000 too...
That was creepy.
I'm saying
if the hidden cost of using a capitalist strategy to administer the economy
is the necessity to use intellectual property paradigms
which remove access to the majority information, knowledge and culture
from the majority of people in the culture
when another administrative method
could give access to everyone
with no increase in the real costs involved
then we need to ditch capitalism
and find another way
--//--
I'm saying
when you can put every single book
every movie, every song, every diagram
every scrap of human creativity
onto a piece of cheap plastic from IBM
and give them out to every man, woman and child on earth
affordably
your arguments that this doesn't jive
with our accounting practices
are not going to hold up
so...
you better get used to the fact
that this shit is on its way
out.
The war on drugs is about ensuring that citizens are addicted to indigenous drugs, and that the profits are centrally controlled.
That's why it's OK for Americans to be addicted to cigarettes and alcohol but not cocaine or crystal meth.
Having everyone addicted to cocaine is a threat to national sovereignty.
Having them addicted to meth is a threat to profits.
The free market would have everyone buying cheap meth or homemade shine, or addicted to foreign produced coke.
As it stands now, they're buying whiskey, cigarettes and cough syrup, which is just the way those on top like it.
The war on terror, on the other hand, is easy to fix.
Keep your military and your CIA at home, and there will be no terrorism.
The terrorists are after vengence because they have been and continue to be systematically wronged. By Americans.
Well, it might be too late now. I imagine there are a lot of orphaned children who aren't going to forget what was done to them.
Yeah... come to think of it... I think you guys are fucked.
There are three types of people, actually.
There are those whose means far exceed their demand for software and media, they would rather drop a couple hundred dollars on something than fuck around with serial sites in the first place. These people don't see any problem with copyright because it doesn't cause them any. There aren't very many of these people, but they do make all the laws.
There are those who cannot afford all the software and media they would like and would rather break the laws than do without just because of the law.
Finally, there are those who cannot afford all the software and media they would like, but are afraid of getting caught, so they don't copy and do without.
Copyright enforcement regimes don't manufacture wealth. They actually prevent its creation by forcing others to do without needlessly.
There are two approaches to setting usability goals. One goal is to make the system as easy as possible for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to use. This approach is best for transient users, such as customers buying big ticket items that won't frequently patronize the site. It's also best when you're presenting internal use stuff to executive clients, because they're usually far removed from the day to day operations of the company and will not be the "power users" of the software. Artists are usually more adept at designing for this goal, because the demands of their job require that they be more closely in tune with other people than the next person. The other goal is to make use of the system as efficient as possible for someone who has taken the time to learn it inside out. I think of it as "make it as easy as possible for someone who has already completed each task three times". This is the best approach for expert systems where the person can be expected to dedicate several hours of each day to using it as part of their job, and it's reasonable to expect them to work at learning. It's also best when you want to make it easy for frequently returning customers to be impulse-sold, like Amazon. Propeller heads are usually more adept at designing for this goal, because the demands of their job require that they be more closely in tune with the underlying system. Most cases end up with some degree of compromise between the two goals, some duplication of user interface into "Expert Mode" and "Novice Mode", and some clutter in the interface to bridge the gap. That would be Amazon.
Running from a difficult situation doesn't mean you've succeeded. Your mother abandoned her spouse and left him to sink into a hole of despair. When people get married and have children, they have a lifelong responsibility to each other.
Your mom taught you to abandon people.
Your father got drunk and abused you and your mother, and you consider this an example of good parenting?
Dear God... Charleston Heston was right all along...
I suppose I better unchain myself from this tree and arm myself...
He had a stepmother. Which means broken home. Which means his parents already failed him before stepmother got on the scene. Which was most likely "not their fault" either, just like my kid being from a broken home is of course not my fault either, but society's fault, or Jesus's fault, or something. Which is also completely irrelevant to the "how do we stop kids from killing people" problem.
He got himself kicked out of every group he was in, and was left to stew into something dangerous. Of course, the fact that he was permitted to be kicked out, that the other children and the adults in supervision of every social group removed the one they didn't like so universally that he was allowed to do this to himself, none of this is the parents fault or our fault. We can't be expected to make everyone play together, it's a free country. Shame how he done gone went and killt one of us, ain't it hoss?
Guess we better just lock him up with all the others. And bury the dead guy of course. Shame there wasn't ever anything that coulda been done different, but I guess he was just born bad.
Personally, I think taking a disturbed and disconnected kid and sticking him in solitary confinement for long periods of time probably had a lot to do with how he ended up emotionally disconnected enough from other people to kill one. Which is not to say that it's the fault of parents at their wits end trying anything and everything.
If you want to socialize someone, you surround them with happy, friendly, non threatening people and let them form connections, you don't lock them in a box except when they're at school. Counseling is also bullshit in this situation. You can't dictate advice to someone who isn't listening.
If I had a son that acted like this, my thoughts would drift towards putting him in band camp or dance class or something where he's forced to hang out with a bunch of chicks and artists. Or some sort of volunteer work where he can see what he's doing helping the people he's interacting with. Stuff that would force him to connect to people and give him practical experience in interacting with them positively.
Pussy, embarrassing, heartstrings kind of stuff that he would most likely hate way more than being left alone in his room, when you get down to it.
Kind of like the "finding religion" experience, except without the brainwashing etc..
Of course the customers just pay more. If they're dealing with a huge corporation that can absorb all these losses, raise their rates and have customers with no option but to return.
Of course, if you run your own business making and selling high ticket items, and you need the money from your sales to buy supplies and cover your cost, it's not the same.
You can't double the cost of what you sell next to recoup the loss when someone rips you off on one of those high ticket items, no one would buy it.
This treatment of fraud helps big existing players because when big players get stung by this injustice, they roll it off to the trapped customers, but when small players get stung, they fold or suck it up out of their personal funds.
The government of a communist country has an obligation towards "the people", at least in principle.
A set of capitalist monopolies, on the other hand, have no obligation to society whatsoever.
We don't control our oil, gas or even our hydro anymore thanx to the FTAA
Not if we just ignore the free trade agreement. The US does, or did you not notice that even after the settlement, they still ripped us off over a billion dollars just on the softwood lumber dispute alone.
We can do anything we want. Canada could turn out the lights on the entire northern united states tomorrow if we wanted, and if they fucked with us the way they did with Iraq, we wouldn't need nukes, we could adulterate their water supplies at the border and kill half their population in a week. We have geography on our side.
Don't believe the hype. This is OUR country.
It wasn't that long ago people would have thought you were crazy if you suggested Canada would make more money not selling cattle to the US.
Now we have meat packing plants of our own, and we can sell frozen steak internationally with all the associated markup.
Why the hell are we selling our oil?
They had a feature on CBC earlier about how Canada is now a terrorist target because we supply oil to the US war machine. They have apparently beefed up security on our oil sand facilities.
I'll be getting in touch with my MP to let them know that I feel that we are indeed supplying oil to an aggressive rogue nation, just like the terrorists say, and that I would rather we keep our oil for ourselves.
Being that it's a finite resource we will need for ourselves, being that we're putting our nation at risk by selling it, being that we sully our national pride and international reputation by selling it to the US, it really would be wise for our government to keep it in the country.
They've got 23 million in funding... apparently someone cares...
It's most likely not intended to universally block all access to social networking sites. There are, after all, internet cafes and home internet access available.
It's most likely intended to give the librarian the authority to tell someone who is using the library computers to surf myspace.com to get off the computer and let someone waiting to do their homework have it.
We are talking about libraries, after all...
Personally, I want the USA disarmed. I'd support my country participating in a multi-national military action to see that achieved.
I'm not sure how the vorbis example is any different than the network stack or giflib. In any case, the BSD licence explicitly allows inclusion in proprietary software that is its advantage in the eyes of its supporters. The disadvantage is that it has no protection against secret embrace-and-extend modifications. I'm building a super-cool-music-player.
It plays all sorts of formats.
I have been working on it for a long time.
It really is very good, and a lot of people are going to use it.
I have no intention whatsoever of releasing it under the GPL.
It's going ahead regardless of if it has your codec in it or not, and your codec has too little market penetration for me to dedicate time to writing code to support it myself.
The codec with a BSD implementation released gets supported. The GPL'd one does not.
If you're more interested in seeing media with your codec in it than making other peoples software free, the BSD licence works better.
Get it?
Yes.
We should be shooting them in the head.
Finally, people are starting to get it.
This is precisely what we should be shooting for.
Privacy is more about safety from prejudice than anything else. The important thing is that everyone loses it at once, no one has to go first, and everyone gets equal access.