I don't know what the administrative interface looks like for Slashdot, hell, I haven't even been given mod points yet despite regular meta moderation. If your curious as to what the interface look like you can download your own copy of the code that runs slashdot here: http://www.slashcode.com/
Now you can award yourself as many mods points as you want:)
. I understand that it's a flaw to delete the moved files without checking to see if the move was successful, but really you should be just copying and then manually deleting after confirming that your files moved properly. Are you serious?
Moving a file is fairly basic functionality that has been in windows since the last versions of MS-DOS. It has been in unix since long before I have been using it.
The process you describe for moving a file in your post is so basic that it should be child's play to automate and combine it into a single function.
Give me nuke plants (modern breeder types) No, don't. Chernobyl was a type of Fast Breeder Nuclear reactor. They are not any safer than traditional nuclear power plants, they are just cheaper.
For a safe design go and look up "Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor". These have the capability to become a much safer design but they are still on the drawing board.
For a decent article discussing the various types of reactor currently in use look here:
All I was trying to imply with the quote you mention above was that we in the west did not like the system of communism adopted by Russia. If you quoted the second sentence of that paragraph as well that would have been more clear.
I am aware that our rulers did not hate socialism enough to ally ourselves with Hitler. I was also not trying to spread propaganda. Why would I spread propaganda for a long dead system? All I was trying to suggest was that when both sides developed Nuclear weapons a balance ensued that actually brought about stability and that without that balance the same thing MAY not have happened. You seem to have jumped on one line of my post without reading the rest.
Not sure what you refer to when you talk about George Kennan's "X" article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" but I will throw it into google when I have more time.
I'd add, it depends on product, the complexity of the codebase, the extensibility, modularity, readability, and extensibility of the codebase (eg, if it's highly modular it's easier to test a fix that's limited to the module/plugin) Not sure why nobody else has mentioned this but maybe it is just me being thick. The big question to me is "Do you control the hardware / OS?"
Where I work we generally get bugs fixed within 48 hours, anything longer and my boss gets an automated email detailing when the issue was raised, developer it is assigned to, etc. We can do this because our testing cycle is short and we only support hardware / OS / browsers of our choosing.
In my experience QA / Testing is the longest part of any bug fix. You might change one character or half the code base, but the testing department still have to go through the same process because they probably do not know the extent of the fix due to the principles of blind testing.
If the testing team are given too much info regarding the nature of a bugfix they may well tailor the tests they run to each fix. This sounds fine in theory, but it means if the developers miss something the testing team probably will too. Decent testing should be based on the original written specification rather than the implementation.
The Soviet battle plan was for a conventional invasion for permanent conquest so of course they would not precede that with a nuclear strike. The NATO battle plan was designed around a defense in depth. Acknowledging that would require you to be something other than a troll. In the final sentence of my original post I did say that I thought the US deploying nuclear weapons against Japan and hence demonstrating they had them was the main reason that the Russian advance stopped in Berlin at the end of the war. I probably should have put it more clearly but my lunch hour was nearly over.
The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Stalin, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Germany. Germany did not adopt any form of socialism. Hitler used the name "National Socialism" as a smokescreen but he did not adopt any socialist policies. He did re-nationalise a number of businesses but only if they were owned by Jews, Gypsies or Foreigners. In terms of private ownership Hitler was all for it providing it was German private ownership. One of the cornerstones of true Socialism is the idea of state ownership.
The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was cart all the Socialists off to the gas chambers. He actually killed the Jews last, before then he had killed Jehovas Witnesses, Socialists, Gypsies, Homosexuals and various other groups he viewed as inferior. Killing every Jew in Europe was certainly his most ambitious project but the numbers he had already killed were pretty scary.
The fact is though that America was quite happy sit back and watch, only joining the second world war when Japan attacked them. Until then America stayed out of the war in Europe.
Why would they do this after the war? Wouldn't they want to explore the technology for other uses, and profit further from the leadership in this field they developed? I mean, what's the reason for hiding (and, worse, destroying!) their code-breaking machine after the war has ended? The main reason for the destruction was that we no longer needed the same number of machines. We did keep two though I believe which were moved to GCHQ (General Communications Head Quarters - Our eavesdropping department). We certainly did not destroy them all but much of what they did after the war will still be classified.
The man is possibly one of the greatest heroes of all time, he equalised the power balance and prevented the Americans from bombing whoever they wished. I wish I had mod points for this but I don't so I will have to just repost it with a higher score (until some pro-us looneys mod this down as a troll or whatever).
The one thing that history has taught us is that power corrupts. If we in the west had the ability to make communism go away with one button and no chance of any reprisals we may have done it (or our policians may have done it for us without asking).
Also note that the Russia had a policy of never striking first with Nuclear weapons unless we deployed them first, we (NATO) had no such policy. We held on to Nukes as way to discourage a conventional invasion so we had a policy that allowed us to strike first with WMD's, otherwise this policy would not have been effective.
The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Hitler, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Russia. The fact is that in the cold war we came very close to a nuclear exchange anyway, and this was when we knew the opposing side could match us.
If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further. I also believe that Russia would probably have not stopped the tanks when they did, if not for us demonstrating our nuclear ability against Japan.
One of the interesting things I've noticed over the past 10+ years of working in IT is that more and more companies are asking questions like "How many patents do you have?" on job applications. But the answer will almost always be zero as the patents would be owned by whoever was paying you when you came up with the idea. Even if you come up with the idea while studying it will just be the uni that owns it.
The fact is that the patent system has long been designed so that you need money to enjoy its protection, people who are unemployed very rarely have enough money to file a patent and most contracts of employment sign any patent rights over to your employer.
But if you're the next great band, and no one knows who you are, you might want the label to push your product for you, while you focus on just making the music and touring. The record companies will always try and make this seem true, but be careful.
In the world we live in money is king. If you are not paying any attention to what the record company are doing they will screw you over for a buck. This should not come as any great surprise to anyone as this is true the world over. We all know that the adverts for viagra we receive via email are not actually sent because some long lost friend really wants to improve our sex life, they are sent to make money from us.
Signing a contract (of any kind whatsoever) of any kind is no different, you have to read it. If you do not want to read it, you can pay someone else (like a lawyer appointed by you, not someone with a vested interest in the other party) to do it for you. If you do not do this then you may be signing away more than you expect.
In regard to the standard record company contract they give to prospective artists, this usually contains a clause that any money the record company invest in you is not a gift, it is a conditional loan. So if you flop you may not have to pay it back, but if you succeed then every single penny the record company spend will be accounted for, recorded and then deducted from your earnings with interest.
So if you are not paying attention, then you might find the record company exec who is being so nice, decides to start charging his own personal expenditure to your account. You might find that not only the beers you were drinking all night (and other indulgences) but also his own after you left, were actually all coming out of your future earnings.
Or you find that the record company do not go looking for the cheapest quote for getting your publicity material printed, they instead go with the same company they always use but at a rate 30% higher than usual. The record company are willing to this as they know they are just spending your money, and the printers will probably just pass them the discount back on some later print run that the record company are actually paying for.
This is just one example, but the point I am trying to get across is simple:
If you are not looking out for you own best interests, then who is?
Most of the problems with the patent system right now can be traced to the fact that patent examiners neither have enough time nor the qualifications necessary to make such determinations -- the days when the likes of Einstein worked for the Patent Office are long past. However, this is a reason to recruit more and better patent examiners (and in particular more in the area of computing), not to throw out the entire system. Now first let me make clear that I agree with the above statement and think that you have correctly identified the root of the problem.
The only problem I have is with your suggestion as to how to fix it. The patent office would need to be vastly increased in size in order to cope with having people with a higher degree of specialisation. This would also result in the patent office having to hire more expensive staff (better qualifications and specialised expertise is not cheap).
This would in turn put up the tax bill for the average american, and we know how much they love politicians suggesting higher taxes. The other issue is that this would negatively impact on patent lawyers earnings. The large patent law firms would therefore lobby very hard against such a move.
At least the Ferrari will get you laid. When I show girls my bitchin' SLI rig, all I get is, "umm, okay..." Then you are using too much Rohypnol. Showing them your SLI rig is supposed to be a litmus test in order to work out if they are conscious enough to remember what you are about to do to them but not too out of it to be any fun. If they are conscious enough to reply coherently when you show them your PC then you need to be careful what you do after then as they may remember your address in the morning.
It says techie pay has increased by 5.5% in one quarter, not over the whole year. There is a huge difference. This equates to 22% over the whole year. these is no way inflation is running at 20% in the states or anywhere else in the developed world.
Actually, your argument isn't logically sound - I am not required to give a fully-valid alternative in order to point out the sensationalist and reasonably-misrepresenting implications of the article's existing title. Yup, your right you didn't need to but you tried and made a complete hash of it. My argument was that if you were going to give an example of a better headline you should have made sure it was actually a better headline not a load of old tosh. If you had just whined about the existing title I probably would not have replied at all.
Or alternatively, you could learn to read properly and not just glance at a few key words and jump to the wrong conclusion. I read the title and instantly understood what it meant. I have not bothered to RTFA in this instance because I am off to sleep and don't have time.
The fact is that the title is fairly clear. Your suggested title ("MySQL adds code from Google") would be factually wrong since the code is due to be given to MySQL, but it has not happened yet. So the articles title is far better than your suggestion since it is in the correct tense. It would also be incorrect since MySQL is not adding anything, Google are. So maybe a better title would be "Google to donate code to MySQL" but since I don't mind the actual title I provide this only as an example.
If you are going to slag off the title that accompanies a post, please make sure you give a better example. I also think that whoever moderated your post as insightful should use their mod points more carefully.
I was (still am) irritated that companies in the west quite frequently make money by selling arms to dictatorships that use those arms to stay in power against the wishes of the people who live under their rule. Companies like BAe Systems make huge profits by selling to countries like Indonesia who have an appalling human rights record. I know you can always make the argument that if we don't someone else will but that still doesn't make it any less morally wrong.
I am especially against schemes like the Export Credit Guarantee Department which underwrite these sales so that if the people in said country manage to oust the dictator from power before payment has been made then British taxpayers money is used to pay the bill and then the cost (plus interest) is added to the countries national debt.
In this manner the people who get rid of the dictator end up paying for the weapons that were used to suppress them. I think that if a western company is willing to do business with a country that is on the brink of collapse it should do so at its own risk.
One example is various companies supplying Saddam Hussein with arms (and the Falluja 2 chemical weapons plant) shortly before he invaded Kuwait.
Although these links only mention British involvement President Reagan was also a supporter of Saddam when he was fighting Iran so American companies were also involved. Here is an interesting photo of Saddam and Reagan shaking hands, not that it proves anything by itself:
So you might get US Customs to let you export weapons to Burma but the Treasury won't let you get paid for them unless you find a local who is willing pretend it's a personal family transfer and to send it to you in chuncks of $300 per calendar quarter. Or I arrange to have the payment sent to my numbered account in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or any other country that allows the banking industry to operate without government intervention.
I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment. It bans investment in the country but a simple sale of weaponary (even that which may be used to surpress the pro-democracy campaigners) where the profit all ends up in the hands of a US company seems to be fair play.
The fact is the the western governments (mine included, I am British) do not like banning the sale of arms to these sort of countries as it damages our economies and may cost us jobs. The only time we ban the sale of arms is when we fear they may be used against us, if they are just going to be used to surpress indiginous pupulations we generally don't mind.
If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong. Modding this post down as flamebait or troll does not contribute to this discussion in a positive way.
Many people just don't get the fact they shouldn't use their home directory as a place to download their goodies. It is what they share without even knowing is what is dangerous. Then when they lose all their money to identity theft and starve it can be treated as clear cut case of Darwin Laws in action and we post it slashdot as positive confirmation of the theory of evolution.
Anyone that stupid should not be using the internet.
Not sure what your point is, but I have never heard anyone recomend not wearing a suit to an interview. Most large companies have a selection of people interviewing (Techies, Management and Human Resources) all at the same time. So you have to face three people who go and compare notes after the interview. You might be able to carry off convincing the techie if you don't wear a suit, but the other two are a different matter.
Which means those future corporate managers are screwing their companies, by hiring second-rate techies. Serves them right for looking for conformance rather than competence. Their not screwing their company if they still hire someone who can get the job done. They are just hiring someone who has more potential to end up in a managerial position. These are the techies who are in the most demand, the people who can ultimately put things into terms that management can understand.
That's actually a well styled fallacy of origin, "he didn't wear shoes". I would say that if people are lame enough to dismiss the speech just for that they deserve to be controlled by the big corporations, f*cked from behind by DRM... The fact that he didn't wear shoes I took from the full article linked above.
And the people he was addressing are likely to be the people who end up running huge corporations not the people who end up getting screwed by them.
I would love to wake up. But until food is free I have to keep earning money.
Maybe when your dad stops paying for everything you will understand, until then, Shut the fuck Up. When you have spent a night in prison for your beliefs you can criticise me for being a slave, but not until then.
I have spent years campaigning against capitalism. I have tried so many different paths of resistance that I realised the only one that stood a chance was to convince the masses that it was bad for them to. This is a form of marketing. You have to market the idea that the current world we live in is not ideal, and that it can be improved. You don't like the word marketing, fine. Called in convincing or something else without the same connotations. But that is just stupid semantics that are lost on most of the uneducated masses you need to convince.
I am sure he made some very good points regarding DRM and why it is bad for consumers and also the businesses that are currently using it.
But why bother? The fact that he could not even be bothered to wear shoes, let alone a suit has probably set our position back miles. The fact is that first appearances count for a lot, and the first impression you would get of him when he took that stage is that he was just there are as joke and the ninjas were just part of it.
I know us techies are known for refusing to wear suits and such but that is actually half the problem. The corporate world would rather hire techies who are slightly less good at their jobs but are will make a very minor concession to corporate culture. If you want to get taken seriously by the future corporate managers attending Yale, wear a suit.
On a topic such as DRM you have to be very careful how you come across. If the corporate world only ever see people lobbying against it who look like they would also lobby against the corporate culture itself may well think the two are related. If they see people campaigning against DRM who are already part of the corporate world they may take them more seriously.
So when Steve Jobs comes out and makes a speech against DRM it helps, when someone who looks like a worthless hippie does the same it actually helps the proponents of DRM more than the opponents.
Indeed, the victims of the London and Madrid bombings should be ashamed of themselves. It's their own fault after all for not litening (that's listening as in the bend over backwards sense of the word). Sorry for being so flippant, your right, we should listen to the argument. We should then discount the idea for so many different reasons. I could start listing them, but that would make this post so far offtopic (and long) it would not even be a joke. I will however list one key reason: If you have to resort to violence you have already lost the argument. Also note that I don't think they were killed over religion, I think they were killed because we invaded Iraq and we did that for Oil not to enforce Christianity or Democracy.
Well it won't happen while Europeans are in the majorty, but don't count on that lasting. Sharia law is already in de facto effect in some parts of Europe (e.g. the Parisian Banlieue). They're campaigning for it to be formally recognised in the UK. Any links regarding Sharia Law being enforced in paris? You can campaign for Sharia Law in the UK, you are about as likely to be successful as I am at campaigning to the next President of the United States, maybe less if that is actually even possible.
The fact is that in Europe, Europeans are a majority and most of us a not the most devout muslims you are likely to meet. We like being decadent. We like drinking alcohol. We like doing so many things that Sharia law forbids that there would have to be such a huge a cultural shift that I cannot even imagine what this country would look like afterwards.
Speaking as Brit, even if the rest of Europe adopted Sharia Law, we would probably opt out all European institutions completely and re-target all our nuclear capabilities at Paris, Germany and Brussels.
A few of British people would probably support this already we are rather stubborn when it comes to home rule. (For evidence of stubborn attitude, see "Second World War" or "Battle of Britain" in a reference book or something, you should be able to find it)
Aside - I hope your post was flamebait, (I bit) otherwise you are one deluded individual. Judging by your website it probably is but I always enjoy a good rant about religion and I have karma to burn.
And yet, unlike the US, many European countries have established churches. Kind of ironic that in Europe, there is more substantive separation of religion from the secular authority, while in the US there is more formal separation of the two. Yup, but we established the Church of England before the United States of America even existed as a nation. Back then the entire continent of America was populated by an entirely different group of people.
From my very limited knowledge of history that is one of the main reasons why so many people were willing to risk a long sea voyage to a far off land: To escape persecution due to religious beliefs.
This is probably why there is such a formal separation of church and state in the US, because the country was partly founded by people who had experienced the worst side of what can happen when that separation is not present.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.slashcode.com/
Now you can award yourself as many mods points as you want
Moving a file is fairly basic functionality that has been in windows since the last versions of MS-DOS. It has been in unix since long before I have been using it.
The process you describe for moving a file in your post is so basic that it should be child's play to automate and combine it into a single function.
For a safe design go and look up "Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor". These have the capability to become a much safer design but they are still on the drawing board.
For a decent article discussing the various types of reactor currently in use look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_technology
It seems to suggest that Pressurised Water Reactors are the safest design.
All I was trying to imply with the quote you mention above was that we in the west did not like the system of communism adopted by Russia. If you quoted the second sentence of that paragraph as well that would have been more clear.
I am aware that our rulers did not hate socialism enough to ally ourselves with Hitler. I was also not trying to spread propaganda. Why would I spread propaganda for a long dead system? All I was trying to suggest was that when both sides developed Nuclear weapons a balance ensued that actually brought about stability and that without that balance the same thing MAY not have happened. You seem to have jumped on one line of my post without reading the rest.
Not sure what you refer to when you talk about George Kennan's "X" article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" but I will throw it into google when I have more time.
Where I work we generally get bugs fixed within 48 hours, anything longer and my boss gets an automated email detailing when the issue was raised, developer it is assigned to, etc. We can do this because our testing cycle is short and we only support hardware / OS / browsers of our choosing.
In my experience QA / Testing is the longest part of any bug fix. You might change one character or half the code base, but the testing department still have to go through the same process because they probably do not know the extent of the fix due to the principles of blind testing.
If the testing team are given too much info regarding the nature of a bugfix they may well tailor the tests they run to each fix. This sounds fine in theory, but it means if the developers miss something the testing team probably will too. Decent testing should be based on the original written specification rather than the implementation.
The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was cart all the Socialists off to the gas chambers. He actually killed the Jews last, before then he had killed Jehovas Witnesses, Socialists, Gypsies, Homosexuals and various other groups he viewed as inferior. Killing every Jew in Europe was certainly his most ambitious project but the numbers he had already killed were pretty scary.
The fact is though that America was quite happy sit back and watch, only joining the second world war when Japan attacked them. Until then America stayed out of the war in Europe.
The one thing that history has taught us is that power corrupts. If we in the west had the ability to make communism go away with one button and no chance of any reprisals we may have done it (or our policians may have done it for us without asking).
Also note that the Russia had a policy of never striking first with Nuclear weapons unless we deployed them first, we (NATO) had no such policy. We held on to Nukes as way to discourage a conventional invasion so we had a policy that allowed us to strike first with WMD's, otherwise this policy would not have been effective.
The rulers of the west had one thing in common with Hitler, they both despised the idea of Socialism in the form adopted by Russia. The fact is that in the cold war we came very close to a nuclear exchange anyway, and this was when we knew the opposing side could match us.
If we knew they had no chance of retaliating except with a conventional attack I could see us in the west having taken things a lot further. I also believe that Russia would probably have not stopped the tanks when they did, if not for us demonstrating our nuclear ability against Japan.
The fact is that the patent system has long been designed so that you need money to enjoy its protection, people who are unemployed very rarely have enough money to file a patent and most contracts of employment sign any patent rights over to your employer.
In the world we live in money is king. If you are not paying any attention to what the record company are doing they will screw you over for a buck. This should not come as any great surprise to anyone as this is true the world over. We all know that the adverts for viagra we receive via email are not actually sent because some long lost friend really wants to improve our sex life, they are sent to make money from us.
Signing a contract (of any kind whatsoever) of any kind is no different, you have to read it. If you do not want to read it, you can pay someone else (like a lawyer appointed by you, not someone with a vested interest in the other party) to do it for you. If you do not do this then you may be signing away more than you expect.
In regard to the standard record company contract they give to prospective artists, this usually contains a clause that any money the record company invest in you is not a gift, it is a conditional loan. So if you flop you may not have to pay it back, but if you succeed then every single penny the record company spend will be accounted for, recorded and then deducted from your earnings with interest.
So if you are not paying attention, then you might find the record company exec who is being so nice, decides to start charging his own personal expenditure to your account. You might find that not only the beers you were drinking all night (and other indulgences) but also his own after you left, were actually all coming out of your future earnings.
Or you find that the record company do not go looking for the cheapest quote for getting your publicity material printed, they instead go with the same company they always use but at a rate 30% higher than usual. The record company are willing to this as they know they are just spending your money, and the printers will probably just pass them the discount back on some later print run that the record company are actually paying for.
This is just one example, but the point I am trying to get across is simple:
If you are not looking out for you own best interests, then who is?
The only problem I have is with your suggestion as to how to fix it. The patent office would need to be vastly increased in size in order to cope with having people with a higher degree of specialisation. This would also result in the patent office having to hire more expensive staff (better qualifications and specialised expertise is not cheap).
This would in turn put up the tax bill for the average american, and we know how much they love politicians suggesting higher taxes. The other issue is that this would negatively impact on patent lawyers earnings. The large patent law firms would therefore lobby very hard against such a move.
It says techie pay has increased by 5.5% in one quarter, not over the whole year. There is a huge difference. This equates to 22% over the whole year. these is no way inflation is running at 20% in the states or anywhere else in the developed world.
Or alternatively, you could learn to read properly and not just glance at a few key words and jump to the wrong conclusion. I read the title and instantly understood what it meant. I have not bothered to RTFA in this instance because I am off to sleep and don't have time.
The fact is that the title is fairly clear. Your suggested title ("MySQL adds code from Google") would be factually wrong since the code is due to be given to MySQL, but it has not happened yet. So the articles title is far better than your suggestion since it is in the correct tense. It would also be incorrect since MySQL is not adding anything, Google are. So maybe a better title would be "Google to donate code to MySQL" but since I don't mind the actual title I provide this only as an example.
If you are going to slag off the title that accompanies a post, please make sure you give a better example. I also think that whoever moderated your post as insightful should use their mod points more carefully.
I was (still am) irritated that companies in the west quite frequently make money by selling arms to dictatorships that use those arms to stay in power against the wishes of the people who live under their rule. Companies like BAe Systems make huge profits by selling to countries like Indonesia who have an appalling human rights record. I know you can always make the argument that if we don't someone else will but that still doesn't make it any less morally wrong.
I am especially against schemes like the Export Credit Guarantee Department which underwrite these sales so that if the people in said country manage to oust the dictator from power before payment has been made then British taxpayers money is used to pay the bill and then the cost (plus interest) is added to the countries national debt.
In this manner the people who get rid of the dictator end up paying for the weapons that were used to suppress them. I think that if a western company is willing to do business with a country that is on the brink of collapse it should do so at its own risk.
One example is various companies supplying Saddam Hussein with arms (and the Falluja 2 chemical weapons plant) shortly before he invaded Kuwait.
Here are some links:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908426,00.html
Although these links only mention British involvement President Reagan was also a supporter of Saddam when he was fighting Iran so American companies were also involved. Here is an interesting photo of Saddam and Reagan shaking hands, not that it proves anything by itself:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Here are some other random links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0DC123DF936A35751C0A963958260
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment. It bans investment in the country but a simple sale of weaponary (even that which may be used to surpress the pro-democracy campaigners) where the profit all ends up in the hands of a US company seems to be fair play.
The fact is the the western governments (mine included, I am British) do not like banning the sale of arms to these sort of countries as it damages our economies and may cost us jobs. The only time we ban the sale of arms is when we fear they may be used against us, if they are just going to be used to surpress indiginous pupulations we generally don't mind.
If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong. Modding this post down as flamebait or troll does not contribute to this discussion in a positive way.
Anyone that stupid should not be using the internet.
And the people he was addressing are likely to be the people who end up running huge corporations not the people who end up getting screwed by them.
I would love to wake up. But until food is free I have to keep earning money.
Maybe when your dad stops paying for everything you will understand, until then, Shut the fuck Up. When you have spent a night in prison for your beliefs you can criticise me for being a slave, but not until then.
I have spent years campaigning against capitalism. I have tried so many different paths of resistance that I realised the only one that stood a chance was to convince the masses that it was bad for them to. This is a form of marketing. You have to market the idea that the current world we live in is not ideal, and that it can be improved. You don't like the word marketing, fine. Called in convincing or something else without the same connotations. But that is just stupid semantics that are lost on most of the uneducated masses you need to convince.
I am sure he made some very good points regarding DRM and why it is bad for consumers and also the businesses that are currently using it.
But why bother? The fact that he could not even be bothered to wear shoes, let alone a suit has probably set our position back miles. The fact is that first appearances count for a lot, and the first impression you would get of him when he took that stage is that he was just there are as joke and the ninjas were just part of it.
I know us techies are known for refusing to wear suits and such but that is actually half the problem. The corporate world would rather hire techies who are slightly less good at their jobs but are will make a very minor concession to corporate culture. If you want to get taken seriously by the future corporate managers attending Yale, wear a suit.
On a topic such as DRM you have to be very careful how you come across. If the corporate world only ever see people lobbying against it who look like they would also lobby against the corporate culture itself may well think the two are related. If they see people campaigning against DRM who are already part of the corporate world they may take them more seriously.
So when Steve Jobs comes out and makes a speech against DRM it helps, when someone who looks like a worthless hippie does the same it actually helps the proponents of DRM more than the opponents.
You can campaign for Sharia Law in the UK, you are about as likely to be successful as I am at campaigning to the next President of the United States, maybe less if that is actually even possible.
The fact is that in Europe, Europeans are a majority and most of us a not the most devout muslims you are likely to meet. We like being decadent. We like drinking alcohol. We like doing so many things that Sharia law forbids that there would have to be such a huge a cultural shift that I cannot even imagine what this country would look like afterwards.
Speaking as Brit, even if the rest of Europe adopted Sharia Law, we would probably opt out all European institutions completely and re-target all our nuclear capabilities at Paris, Germany and Brussels.
A few of British people would probably support this already we are rather stubborn when it comes to home rule. (For evidence of stubborn attitude, see "Second World War" or "Battle of Britain" in a reference book or something, you should be able to find it)
Aside - I hope your post was flamebait, (I bit) otherwise you are one deluded individual. Judging by your website it probably is but I always enjoy a good rant about religion and I have karma to burn.
From my very limited knowledge of history that is one of the main reasons why so many people were willing to risk a long sea voyage to a far off land: To escape persecution due to religious beliefs.
This is probably why there is such a formal separation of church and state in the US, because the country was partly founded by people who had experienced the worst side of what can happen when that separation is not present.