I think we agree... I consider changing the inputs but getting the same result to be an alternate prediction. I think I'm comfortable with your statement - the point I was trying to make is that no one who makes the assertion that anthropomorphic warming is not significant seems to have constructed a model at all - they all seem to be searching for correlations statistically or visually analyzing charts for correlations.
That prize lost it's shine when they gave it to Hull in 1945, Yasser Arafat in 1994, and Al Gore in 2007.
While Hull helped create the UN, he also turned away a boat full of Jews trying to escape Germany - in his defense, he probably didn't know they would be killed... Arafat was a terrorist that got a prize for stopping his terror campaign. I guess all of the peaceful Palestinians don't deserve one unless they kill a bunch of people first? Al Gore did nothing in any way related to peace. Even if climate change leads to conflict, that's a second order effect - should we give his teachers a prize, too? I mean, they enabled him to become the man he is today.
So yeah, the Obama prize was crap, but it became some kind of political tool a long time ago.
(As an aside, I realize that Arafat was not the only recipient that year - I was just picking on him as the most obviously undeserving.)
I think you must be kind of young. Us "old guys" learned on computers without GUIs. Windows 7 is certainly better than XP, but the "Start Menu" isn't some brilliant GUI invention. It's just a growth of the old Program Manager from Windows 3.11, only instead of the program shortcuts being in a big window they collapse into a big list. It's sort of a combination of the old "Apple Menu" and the Program Manager. Throughout it's entire existence, it has suffered from the limitation of the icons just being shortcuts - if the underlying application was moved or deleted, the icon would still be there but wouldn't connect to anything. Likewise, software could be installed but the icon could be missing from the Start Menu. That's one feature of Windows that I'd be glad to see go.
You are reading too much into it. I was just pointing out that he was not playing games, so the fact that Windows is best for games is not relevant. The average business cannot use OSX exclusively - the Windows monopoly is too strong and Mac pisses off the IT guys as Apple mostly ignores enterprise.
Yeah, I get it, Windows has a monopoly. Why are you acting like I was attacking Windows in some way? I even said you can't touch it for games. That doesn't mean everyone needs it. You keep listing applications that BasilBrush clearly doesn't need, since he said that he hasn't booted to Windows in 4 years.
Don't get me wrong - it is very possible to do web dev on Windows... it's just not as nice. I mean, either way you will have configuration and deployment issues - but IMHO these are fewer when your development stack is already unix. I do have Windows at work, and while my web development is now limited to internal apps, I still prefer to set up a dev directory on the Solaris machine and edit those files on the Windows box via ftp/nfs as opposed to trying to get the whole thing to work under Windows. Since it's over the intranet, the latencies aren't too bad when moving files back and forth, but when the server was remote it could be painful - and it's not a great way to work for security reasons when outside the intranet.
Native apps is indeed an obvious example - and yes, the opposite also applies. That is why multiple OS installs on a single machine can be useful and not "stupid". You could probably be an apache developer through cygwin, but oh, God, why?:)
I think the problem with the open court idea is that it exposes a lot of evidence that is probably sensitive to any ongoing battle with the enemy organization. The open court idea is great for lone wolf cases, but otherwise you are left with another "secret court". At that point, who would I rather be accountable, a mystery judge or judges or the President? I think I'd prefer the President, but I'm not religiously wed to the idea.
I just think that it's not the slippery slope people are making it out to be. Even the Troy Davis execution was more controversial.
I do not rent it and I may use it in any legal manner.
That's just not true.
Copyright itself is completely artificial - don't look for any sense of order or justice in it. Humans share information naturally - it is unnatural to restrict it.
In that context, why are you arguing with these judges on the interpretation of the law? Maybe the law should be changed to do as you say - only allow the EULA to extend additional rights. I'm fine with that. I happen to think non-commercial copyright should be abolished and commercial copyright should be set to a short term, like patents. Yeah, this would screw up the GPL, but I think it would be worth it.
We have to do that in some circumstances because of time and situation constraints, such as on a battlefield - but this (IMO) wasn't one of then, and the fewer there are, the better.
I guess I feel like any time you are talking about someone who is actually a danger to the US, and who the traditional courts simply cannot reach, this is an acceptable outcome. If he were in a country where capture, extradition, etc were possible - then yeah, obviously give the guy his due process. He also had ample opportunity to turn himself in to get due process.
I think anywhere a court has any kind of authority, the president should not. Even Saddam got his trial. Honestly, the Bin Laden thing was more over-the-line than this. I supported that action, too - but it was in a supposedly friendly country where an trial might have actually occurred. Hell, there might have even been an extradition.
I work in software development. And I use windows, as do 99% of all of our customers.
I never said all, or even most - I said "a significant number". It's great that you are in a situation where Windows does everything you need it to - not all of us are so lucky, that's all.
But for the OP, it's obviously the case that dual boot options aren't available because 99.999% of people don't want it, need it, or even know what it is.
Dual boot? We're talking about hot-swapping, not dual boot. I can see that being useful. Right now I run a linux VM so that I can run Sage and I run an X client on Windows so that I can work on a Solaris box. If I could hot-swap between Solaris, Windows, and Linux it might improve my work flow. Or it might not... I'd like to try it - it certainly doesn't seem "stupid".
In the context of a tablet, if the HP Touchpad had Android installed alongside WebOS it might have not seemed so locked-in to a dead OS. Their marketing could have targeted real, everyday users: "With the HP Touchpad, you have the full power of industry-standard Android, PLUS the yadda yadda yadda of WebOS!" I'm not a marketer, but even Apple went this route.
Your family or friends can use whatever OS is put in front of them for web surfing, checking email, and the occasional game - that's why Apple is making a killing with their tablets. But a significant number of people who work in IT, in software development, or work on anything that touches the web are dealing with unix servers. I don't doubt that you're sample would include zero, but it's absurd to call switching your OS "stupid", which is what I was responding to. Frankly, it's likely that only very smart people are going to even attempt it.
I shouldn't have even replied, because in retrospect it was just flamebait.
It's not too bad - what do you think would happen to Linux's GPL if the court had ruled that all you have to do to ignore the distribution license is buy it from someone else? You can't just buy a copy of an OS, make a copy, and then sell the copy. For that you need a license. In the case of Apple, they obviously won't give Pystar a license. In the case of Linux, the GPL allows you to do this - but then you need to provide the source in a reasonable way.
If it was a court, with the judge looking at the presented arguments and concluding that, yes, this guy is indeed an enemy combatant, then there is no problem.
See, I have no problem with the President being the judge in this kind of situation. You have a man who presents a danger to the US, and he is out of reach of the civil court system.
I think in this case, the guy is a LOT like an enemy soldier on the battlefield in uniform. But he's a "general" and this is asymmetric warfare.
You have no knowledge he was an enemy of the state.
First of all, that's not true in this case. The man spent his last years railing against the US very publicly, and in interviews described himself as at war with the US. He took credit for violent actions directed towards the US. If there is propaganda here that I am mistakenly believing, it is his, not the government's.
Second, I give the government a lot of latitude during war. I have no idea how many of the Afghan "combatants" were actually the enemy. I have to allow that innocent bystanders will get killed during military action. I have to accept fratricide. None of this is acceptable in the context of civil society. Does that make me a sheep? Perhaps. But during war it is important to be the winning flock.
Here, let me do that too: The US and its policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are pure are evil.
That's pretty disingenuous of you. Make a threat and follow through on it a few times, then we'll talk. At the very least, incite others to violence.
Aw-alaki was murdered for thought crimes and unsubstantiated allegations.
No, he was killed for being part of an organization that is at war with the US. Are you really claiming that this guy didn't deserve to die? You could not have picked a worse example to fight over.
And finally, no commander in chief will ever pay for their crimes.
That's absurd. Nixon got the boot for just knowing about a robbery.
"The President can kill anyone and there's nothing you can do about it."
That is about the worst possible restatement of my opinion that you could have come up with. I told you exactly what could be done about it. Congressional oversight, judicial oversight, and ultimately impeachment are all in place. That is "what you can do about it". I'm arguing that it is the President's responsibility to make these kind of decisions during wartime, not another secret court's.
You should feel deep shame.
Yeah, if I said the words that you tried to stuff in my mouth, I probably would.
Protection from the arbitrary decisions of the leadership is exactly what the 5th is supposed to protect citizens from.
Right, I'm sure the founding fathers were terribly concerned with the rights of citizens who joined foreign armies or resistance groups fighting against the United States.
So if the Commander-in-chief says YOU are an enemy of the state for literally no reason, or perhaps because you an millions of others oppose him politically, you and your millions of pals can be executed without due process, and he just has to pay politically, or through the actions of an already purged congress or an already purged court system?
No, perhaps I wasn't clear. Here is what I mean by "there are no lines". The example you provide is clearly unacceptable. Killing a terrorist in Yemen with a history of attacks on the US is clearly acceptable. There is no firm line somewhere between the two that delineates where killing is and isn't acceptable - it's going to require some judgement. You could create another secret court and require some kind of bench kill warrant process, leaving it all up to some judge or panel of judges, or you could just let the guy elected by the people to do that exact job do his thing. If his judgement is so poor that he's willing to kill millions of my pals, we have bigger problems.
Additionally, I think we should try to leave the civilian judiciary out of war altogether. Trying to make war seem fair or just is a fools game. There is no way to justify the firebombing of Dresden outside of the context of war.
Of course the Yemen war is approved by congress. It's been going on for years and they keep funding it.
Retroactively booting a president who erred on the side of slaughter is a dim compensation to his victims.
The alternative is to throw a bunch of bureaucracy in front of the President, making it impossible to make the types of fast decisions that are needed in this kind of situation.
This is the exact same behaviour as terrorism. They won.
Actually, the war with Al Qaeda seems to have been won. You sometimes do things that you don't like when you are at war. If you don't like the term "war" than substitute it with whatever you like - I'm not particularly fond of semantics arguments, so I'll simply go with whatever you want to use.
LOL, okay. And the whole world wasn't involved in the world wars... and no declaration of war occurred in the Vietnam War, Korean War, First Gulf War, or Second Gulf War... and the Hundred Years War didn't last a hundred years...
You can either go with the flow or tilt at windmills, but I'm afraid you will always be frustrated.
I don't think this is "slippery" at all... this is a clear case of someone who was an enemy of the state operating from within a nation where we are already fighting militarily.
where do we draw the line?
You don't draw "a line", because it's a subjective decision. You leave it up to the Commander-In-Chief. If he's "wrong", he pays for it either politically or through the actions of Congress or the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we agree... I consider changing the inputs but getting the same result to be an alternate prediction. I think I'm comfortable with your statement - the point I was trying to make is that no one who makes the assertion that anthropomorphic warming is not significant seems to have constructed a model at all - they all seem to be searching for correlations statistically or visually analyzing charts for correlations.
That prize lost it's shine when they gave it to Hull in 1945, Yasser Arafat in 1994, and Al Gore in 2007.
While Hull helped create the UN, he also turned away a boat full of Jews trying to escape Germany - in his defense, he probably didn't know they would be killed... Arafat was a terrorist that got a prize for stopping his terror campaign. I guess all of the peaceful Palestinians don't deserve one unless they kill a bunch of people first? Al Gore did nothing in any way related to peace. Even if climate change leads to conflict, that's a second order effect - should we give his teachers a prize, too? I mean, they enabled him to become the man he is today.
So yeah, the Obama prize was crap, but it became some kind of political tool a long time ago.
(As an aside, I realize that Arafat was not the only recipient that year - I was just picking on him as the most obviously undeserving.)
I think you must be kind of young. Us "old guys" learned on computers without GUIs. Windows 7 is certainly better than XP, but the "Start Menu" isn't some brilliant GUI invention. It's just a growth of the old Program Manager from Windows 3.11, only instead of the program shortcuts being in a big window they collapse into a big list. It's sort of a combination of the old "Apple Menu" and the Program Manager. Throughout it's entire existence, it has suffered from the limitation of the icons just being shortcuts - if the underlying application was moved or deleted, the icon would still be there but wouldn't connect to anything. Likewise, software could be installed but the icon could be missing from the Start Menu. That's one feature of Windows that I'd be glad to see go.
You are reading too much into it. I was just pointing out that he was not playing games, so the fact that Windows is best for games is not relevant. The average business cannot use OSX exclusively - the Windows monopoly is too strong and Mac pisses off the IT guys as Apple mostly ignores enterprise.
Yeah, I get it, Windows has a monopoly. Why are you acting like I was attacking Windows in some way? I even said you can't touch it for games. That doesn't mean everyone needs it. You keep listing applications that BasilBrush clearly doesn't need, since he said that he hasn't booted to Windows in 4 years.
Don't get me wrong - it is very possible to do web dev on Windows... it's just not as nice. I mean, either way you will have configuration and deployment issues - but IMHO these are fewer when your development stack is already unix. I do have Windows at work, and while my web development is now limited to internal apps, I still prefer to set up a dev directory on the Solaris machine and edit those files on the Windows box via ftp/nfs as opposed to trying to get the whole thing to work under Windows. Since it's over the intranet, the latencies aren't too bad when moving files back and forth, but when the server was remote it could be painful - and it's not a great way to work for security reasons when outside the intranet.
Native apps is indeed an obvious example - and yes, the opposite also applies. That is why multiple OS installs on a single machine can be useful and not "stupid". You could probably be an apache developer through cygwin, but oh, God, why? :)
Do I really have to suggest to a bunch of /.ers to try and see thru clothing using UV light?
If I could see through clothing, I don't think I could ever shop at Walmart again.
I think the problem with the open court idea is that it exposes a lot of evidence that is probably sensitive to any ongoing battle with the enemy organization. The open court idea is great for lone wolf cases, but otherwise you are left with another "secret court". At that point, who would I rather be accountable, a mystery judge or judges or the President? I think I'd prefer the President, but I'm not religiously wed to the idea.
I just think that it's not the slippery slope people are making it out to be. Even the Troy Davis execution was more controversial.
I do not rent it and I may use it in any legal manner.
That's just not true.
Copyright itself is completely artificial - don't look for any sense of order or justice in it. Humans share information naturally - it is unnatural to restrict it.
In that context, why are you arguing with these judges on the interpretation of the law? Maybe the law should be changed to do as you say - only allow the EULA to extend additional rights. I'm fine with that. I happen to think non-commercial copyright should be abolished and commercial copyright should be set to a short term, like patents. Yeah, this would screw up the GPL, but I think it would be worth it.
We have to do that in some circumstances because of time and situation constraints, such as on a battlefield - but this (IMO) wasn't one of then, and the fewer there are, the better.
I guess I feel like any time you are talking about someone who is actually a danger to the US, and who the traditional courts simply cannot reach, this is an acceptable outcome. If he were in a country where capture, extradition, etc were possible - then yeah, obviously give the guy his due process. He also had ample opportunity to turn himself in to get due process.
I think anywhere a court has any kind of authority, the president should not. Even Saddam got his trial. Honestly, the Bin Laden thing was more over-the-line than this. I supported that action, too - but it was in a supposedly friendly country where an trial might have actually occurred. Hell, there might have even been an extradition.
I work in software development. And I use windows, as do 99% of all of our customers.
I never said all, or even most - I said "a significant number". It's great that you are in a situation where Windows does everything you need it to - not all of us are so lucky, that's all.
But for the OP, it's obviously the case that dual boot options aren't available because 99.999% of people don't want it, need it, or even know what it is.
Dual boot? We're talking about hot-swapping, not dual boot. I can see that being useful. Right now I run a linux VM so that I can run Sage and I run an X client on Windows so that I can work on a Solaris box. If I could hot-swap between Solaris, Windows, and Linux it might improve my work flow. Or it might not... I'd like to try it - it certainly doesn't seem "stupid".
In the context of a tablet, if the HP Touchpad had Android installed alongside WebOS it might have not seemed so locked-in to a dead OS. Their marketing could have targeted real, everyday users: "With the HP Touchpad, you have the full power of industry-standard Android, PLUS the yadda yadda yadda of WebOS!" I'm not a marketer, but even Apple went this route.
I guess Microsoft should simply rewrite the EULA to make it against the license to run Windows on apple branded software;
Yup, they could. But then they'd give up a big chunk of sales for no reason, since they don't even sell competitive hardware.
and this thread is full of smug posters who are claiming "I bought a mac because it runs everything else plus OSX too!"
Which is still a true statement.
So Microsoft could pull the rug out. And then you'd have to choose. And faced with actually having to choose, most people would choose Microsoft.
Yes, they probably would. I can think of lots of unlikely hypothetical situations.
Yay for you. Its been 10 minutes since I logged out of Steam on my Mac and booted up windows because the selection of Mac software is abysmal.
Yup, it sounds like he's doing work. Nothing can touch Windows for games.
Your family or friends can use whatever OS is put in front of them for web surfing, checking email, and the occasional game - that's why Apple is making a killing with their tablets. But a significant number of people who work in IT, in software development, or work on anything that touches the web are dealing with unix servers. I don't doubt that you're sample would include zero, but it's absurd to call switching your OS "stupid", which is what I was responding to. Frankly, it's likely that only very smart people are going to even attempt it.
I shouldn't have even replied, because in retrospect it was just flamebait.
It's not too bad - what do you think would happen to Linux's GPL if the court had ruled that all you have to do to ignore the distribution license is buy it from someone else? You can't just buy a copy of an OS, make a copy, and then sell the copy. For that you need a license. In the case of Apple, they obviously won't give Pystar a license. In the case of Linux, the GPL allows you to do this - but then you need to provide the source in a reasonable way.
Yeah, windows is a joy to do unix development on.
Both get posted way too often to Slashdot?
Opera Mini has destroyed the internet.
</sarcasm>
If it was a court, with the judge looking at the presented arguments and concluding that, yes, this guy is indeed an enemy combatant, then there is no problem.
See, I have no problem with the President being the judge in this kind of situation. You have a man who presents a danger to the US, and he is out of reach of the civil court system.
I think in this case, the guy is a LOT like an enemy soldier on the battlefield in uniform. But he's a "general" and this is asymmetric warfare.
You have no knowledge he was an enemy of the state.
First of all, that's not true in this case. The man spent his last years railing against the US very publicly, and in interviews described himself as at war with the US. He took credit for violent actions directed towards the US. If there is propaganda here that I am mistakenly believing, it is his, not the government's.
Second, I give the government a lot of latitude during war. I have no idea how many of the Afghan "combatants" were actually the enemy. I have to allow that innocent bystanders will get killed during military action. I have to accept fratricide. None of this is acceptable in the context of civil society. Does that make me a sheep? Perhaps. But during war it is important to be the winning flock.
Here, let me do that too: The US and its policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are pure are evil.
That's pretty disingenuous of you. Make a threat and follow through on it a few times, then we'll talk. At the very least, incite others to violence.
Aw-alaki was murdered for thought crimes and unsubstantiated allegations.
No, he was killed for being part of an organization that is at war with the US. Are you really claiming that this guy didn't deserve to die? You could not have picked a worse example to fight over.
And finally, no commander in chief will ever pay for their crimes.
That's absurd. Nixon got the boot for just knowing about a robbery.
"The President can kill anyone and there's nothing you can do about it."
That is about the worst possible restatement of my opinion that you could have come up with. I told you exactly what could be done about it. Congressional oversight, judicial oversight, and ultimately impeachment are all in place. That is "what you can do about it". I'm arguing that it is the President's responsibility to make these kind of decisions during wartime, not another secret court's.
You should feel deep shame.
Yeah, if I said the words that you tried to stuff in my mouth, I probably would.
???? I don't think my comment was in any way meant to justify the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. You're damn right, Al Qaeda needed to be taken down.
Protection from the arbitrary decisions of the leadership is exactly what the 5th is supposed to protect citizens from.
Right, I'm sure the founding fathers were terribly concerned with the rights of citizens who joined foreign armies or resistance groups fighting against the United States.
So if the Commander-in-chief says YOU are an enemy of the state for literally no reason, or perhaps because you an millions of others oppose him politically, you and your millions of pals can be executed without due process, and he just has to pay politically, or through the actions of an already purged congress or an already purged court system?
No, perhaps I wasn't clear. Here is what I mean by "there are no lines". The example you provide is clearly unacceptable. Killing a terrorist in Yemen with a history of attacks on the US is clearly acceptable. There is no firm line somewhere between the two that delineates where killing is and isn't acceptable - it's going to require some judgement. You could create another secret court and require some kind of bench kill warrant process, leaving it all up to some judge or panel of judges, or you could just let the guy elected by the people to do that exact job do his thing. If his judgement is so poor that he's willing to kill millions of my pals, we have bigger problems.
Additionally, I think we should try to leave the civilian judiciary out of war altogether. Trying to make war seem fair or just is a fools game. There is no way to justify the firebombing of Dresden outside of the context of war.
fighting non-wars (not approved by Congress)
Of course the Yemen war is approved by congress. It's been going on for years and they keep funding it.
Retroactively booting a president who erred on the side of slaughter is a dim compensation to his victims.
The alternative is to throw a bunch of bureaucracy in front of the President, making it impossible to make the types of fast decisions that are needed in this kind of situation.
This is the exact same behaviour as terrorism. They won.
Actually, the war with Al Qaeda seems to have been won. You sometimes do things that you don't like when you are at war. If you don't like the term "war" than substitute it with whatever you like - I'm not particularly fond of semantics arguments, so I'll simply go with whatever you want to use.
LOL, okay. And the whole world wasn't involved in the world wars... and no declaration of war occurred in the Vietnam War, Korean War, First Gulf War, or Second Gulf War... and the Hundred Years War didn't last a hundred years...
You can either go with the flow or tilt at windmills, but I'm afraid you will always be frustrated.
but it is still a slippery slope.
I don't think this is "slippery" at all... this is a clear case of someone who was an enemy of the state operating from within a nation where we are already fighting militarily.
where do we draw the line?
You don't draw "a line", because it's a subjective decision. You leave it up to the Commander-In-Chief. If he's "wrong", he pays for it either politically or through the actions of Congress or the courts.