The only problem is that Zimbra isn't in the Ubuntu repository. In fact, none of the so called exchange killers that I could find are in the Ubuntu repository.
I think they pick alternative candidates in the land down under. That said, you aren't throwing away your vote if you vote for a third party. There is no lesser of two evils, the major parties are equally evil. The best you can do is cast your vote and let your voice be heard.
Your candidate might not win but at least you will be able to walk with your head held high and know you don't bear responsibility for the evils beings committed while they are in office.
'You know, it's entirely acceptable to visit Australia with a regular passport. You don't have to wait for the pendulum to swing back, break an Aussie law, and then "visit" Australia to get the hell out of the US.'
Unless you visit on your own you won't be visiting Australia. I don't believe i have ever heard of a US citizen being extradited to another nation for breaking its laws while on US soil.
'The problem comes about because using a car (for example) is required by law if you wish to drive.'
I am going to guess that you meant to say that insurance is required to drive. Again, this isn't a problem with for profit entities choosing not to lose money when they have objective tests that tell them that they will lose money without question. That is a social problem. This is a bad example because the genetic problems that car insurance companies would look for would be things that make you unsafe to drive. Being unsafe to drive means you shouldn't be able to drive. The meat of the question though is that sometimes the government requires you to get services from a private company and that company might exclude portions of the public. The solution isn't to bar objective testing that can benefit society as a whole in upcoming generations and make the roads safer. The solution is to get rid of this lobbied, bought, and paid for legislation. Impeachment of any congressperson who voted for laws of this type would probably sent a nice message as well.
If the government genuinely thinks relief is required when one party can't afford to pay their share of damages then said relief should be a public service paid for with taxes. Taxes are already designed to come from the pockets of those who can afford to fund these programs. Auto insurance on the other hand comes out of everyones pocket no matter how poor.
'Inability to get income will cut out many jobs; not so much for the Wall Street types but for the pizza delivery guy, the mover, the trucker,... i.e. the people who generally earn a lower income.'
Not at all, those jobs will still be there. Those jobs will just be filled by those who are able to drive safely and perform the duties of their position. This will result in the jobs being done well and that means better results for the employers and those who use their services. This means as a society we produce more, have a stronger economy, and in general have a greater chance of working toward a world of plenty.
'If you wish to have a free market solution a better way is to have non-discimatory government (basic) insurance, and then allow commercial insurers to have whatever policies they want. That way you have removed a legal protected oligopoly and can allow effective free market solution.'
Actually I wasn't complaining, you were. But now that I get to this part of your post I will say that I agree. So we actually agree that this is an argument against current government policy and not a reason to support this bill since this bill is just another step in the wrong direction.
'The problem arises that people who cannot afford insurance may not be able to get jobs either.'
Right but this isn't about the poor, there are always going to be poor its a mathematical certainty. Those who have difficulty getting jobs (either directly or via lack of insurance) are those who have genetic defects. And before anyone chimes in about 'defect' being subjective. You say a club foot adds character to make the club footer feel good about themselves. They would feel better if they weren't born with a club foot and that makes it a defect. Being unemployed (again, there will always be plenty of unemployed; welcome to the real world where there aren't enough cheerios to go around) means being less likely to get laid and land a mate. That means that these defects will become less and less common.
Will this be abused and does it represent the first step on a path that leads to dark places? Sure does. But so does everything? The only thing that is going to solve that problem is for humans to not be selected.
'You sound as though you believe that there is "a way that things are supposed to be", which is usually the province of those who don't believe in evolution.'
That isn't correct at all. Well it is technically correct and technically doesn't support your conclusion. The province of people who don't believe in evolution doesn't apply to me since I do believe in evolution. Since most people believe in evolution and most people believe in the existence of deities and religion there are no shortage of people who believe in both evolution AND cosmic right and wrong.
But I don't believe in a cosmic right and wrong because I don't believe in a religion or creator and more to the point a cosmic goal. I do believe that right and wrong exist within context though. Once you define a goal then right and wrong suddenly exist, its just that there is no cosmic goal (or at least none with anything remotely resembling supporting evidence). However we have an instinctual desire to perpetuate our species and within that context right and wrong suddenly exist. Natural selection weeds out the genes that break people and perpetuates the genes that make them thrive (that genes that do neither may or may not make it).
Nobody is suggesting that killing off the Hawkings of the world is a good idea but I don't think it would be a good idea to force a construction company to hire him or an insurance company to insure him. After all, his bills are likely enormous and insurance companies are private and must make a profit. If you think Hawking should have his bills paid for him then you need to support public health care, not bankrupting insurance companies.
We are talking about objective tests to screen for objective problems and taking objective actions based upon the results. We aren't talking about screening for a gene that dramatically increases the likelihood of anemia in order to have an article accepted in a peer reviewed journal. I think a logical man like Hawking would agree with this concept. If someone who has a problem gene that is screened for has another trait that is a dramatic improvement and should be carried on then that gene will allow them to successfully mate in spite of difficulties.
Besides, the bright ones don't enslave themselves to employment to others. They have authority issues and make their own way.
That depends on your definition of reverse engineering. In a copyright free code I don't have to reinvent the wheel, I can take the code directly from the disassembled application.
You can't win, the right cuts taxes (for the wealthy) and increases government spending. The left increases taxes (for comfortable individuals) and increases government spending.
Both cut taxes for corporations and increase government handouts to corporations. Both reduce the rights of citizens and grant new ones to corporations. Both support copyright regimes.
The right claims to cater to rural nuts and wins the heart of the 'common man' by claiming that those who educate themselves and have brains 'intellectuals' are somehow bad and shouldn't be listened to. The left claims to cater to those with thoughts and be the party of reason.
Neither lives up to those promises, they just pay lip service to them (although the right is closer, since they are officially in favor of business over individuals they just ignore the rest of the nonsense). Both strengthen the central government, attempt to weaken the judicial branch, and attempt to take all the power upon themselves.
Its a rigged game. The only hope is revolution and revolution won't come. The only ones who have the stomach for violence are the ignorant masses. The only ones bright enough to understand the need are intellectuals who don't have the stomach and still haven't realized that violence sometimes IS the answer.
I'm not saying I have the stomach for revolution either. I'm just stating the facts. I'm just hoping to stay under the radar and hope the march doesn't move so quickly I have to move to another western nation that is a couple steps behind in the process. In the end all governments grow corrupt and must be abolished.
In a world without copyright (and without software patents), there is no longer a need for the GPL. After all, trade secret as you wish but any software can be disassembled and reverse engineered.
'Why do "good genetics" deserve jobs and superior healthcare?'
Because the genetics employers screen for will be those that produce results that interfere with the duties of the job or jobs in general.
Because superior health care comes with better insurance rates (or fitness to be insured). Insurance companies will no doubt look for genetic traits that lead to illness, death, or otherwise make you too risky to insure. This makes perfect sense, insurance is not a public service, it is a private racket. If you believe there is a social responsibility to help the weak and genetically defective then more power to you but your idea clashes with the current health care system.
'The rich you see, who by our social standards are the unsuccessful ones thus by your logic have better genes, do not reproduce as much.'
I haven't seen anything to support this assertion. This isn't the 1800's where having lots of sons is beneficial. My experience is that the well off have extreme consistency in selecting attractive mates and squeezing out a few brats. The poor may or may not have brats. As the costs for abortions and the availability of birth control spreads the problem shrinks even more.
I haven't seen any evidence that the poor have larger families than the wealthy anymore. It could be but I doubt it, as for unmarried and unprotected sex the wealthy are just as guilty as the poor. For this class of sex there is probably a greater chance of the wealthy choosing a poor (but attractive) mate. Don't confuse the fact that 99% of the population is poor with poor families having more children.
'The rich you see, who by our social standards are the unsuccessful ones thus by your logic have better genes, do not reproduce as much.'
I don't even follow that. You make a huge unsupported leap in logic here. By 'our' social standards the wealthy are unsuccessful? Who is 'our'? I don't know of any group that views the wealthy as the unsuccessful in any terms. At worst they are considered 'no better'.
I am not saying that society currently rewards the best or the worst. I am saying that genetic screening has the potential to be an objective way to identify bad genetics and that using this information will ultimately help society to reward the best with jobs and superior healthcare.
Just consider the potential, with the genetic testing of tomorrow we might be able to screen out George Bush as a presidential candidate.
You can have your lovey dovey society for now. It wouldn't exist without natural selection. Those 5% aren't meant to succeed in life and if all goes well won't exist within a few generations. Failing in life means that they won't find a mate or will have to settle for an inferior mate.
We aren't talking about discrimination based upon irrelevant genetics. This is like stopping an insurance company from accepting someone with a pre-existing condition that has been diagnosed with an objective test.
Insurance companies are for profit businesses and they do have the great responsibility to the public to be good neighbors that everyone places upon them. These are not charity organizations. They are basically casinos, they are the house and they rig the odds. If you are foolish enough to toss money into the slots you deserve what you get. Choosing to charge higher rates or not to insure high risk clients is no different then the house adjusting the payout below the actual odds.
'Blender also had quite the community - where's the K3D community? Where is that being nurtured/grown?'
From what I can see this question is posted by someone who wants to hijack the Blender community and have it adopt one of these other projects instead. Unfortunately, so far his posts have been vague and he hasn't mentioned one specific design aspect that is superior in these projects. Until he does it just sounds like he thinks everyone should make programs work the way he likes them.
In what way are the designs solid? What about the design of blender makes it less solid? Specifically what aspect of blender is unable to grow and what is the difference in these other applications that makes them able to grow?
'applications like Maya, Softimage and Houdini have demonstrated that'
In what manner?
'Comparing blender to all of those on a design level makes blender stand out as the toy.'
In what fashion?
Do you have any constructive criticism or is this entire post just a troll? Can you name any specific features, design constructs, or methods that are actually superior in these applications or do you just prefer in the interface in the commercial applications you learned in?
Who has $200 million AND actually wants to reduce the need for oil? Are you one of those who actually believes our dependence upon oil has something to do with a lack of other technology?
Lets stop tiptoeing around it. This is a credible journal but not the first choice because the most obvious choices refused to publish an article on cold fusion no matter how credible the source.
'Why was this article not published in "US military journal of applied physics" (surely there must be something like this)?'
That seems pretty obvious. Cold Fusion is considered junk science in the US and even credible labs releasing credible and reproducible results can't get anything related to Cold Fusion published in a US journal.
Just look at this thread, this is obviously a credible scientific journal and people are already looking for excuses to disregard it.
'This is one of the most ignorant fucking things I have ever read. It is utterly impossible to contract the AIDS virus through any of those methods.'
So you are claiming that when a chain of people all working with sharp objects all handle the same material that cross contamination is impossible? Sorry but if you have infected butchers and cooks handling meat then contaminated meat would actually be fairly common. The butchers can then pass it on to the cooks or either can pass it on to consumers. After all, everyone from the butcher to the consumer is using a knife and can cut themselves. True, two of the links have to be cut for transmission to occur but cuts in meat handling are a daily occurance. Odds are that someone on your block cut themselves preparing meat today.
There is a more important right granted in the constitution that bears directly on stopping corruptions of government. It recognizes that a corrupt government can not be punished under the law because it is able to corrupt the law.
The right in question is the right to bear arms. Hopefully we haven't let that be dilluted to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Historically Facism produces excellent science. Just look at Germany. During their short term under Hitler they developed the technologies that are the bedrock of all our modern technology. If you count all the scientists that were born of that period they get even more credit.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem is that Zimbra isn't in the Ubuntu repository. In fact, none of the so called exchange killers that I could find are in the Ubuntu repository.
I think they pick alternative candidates in the land down under. That said, you aren't throwing away your vote if you vote for a third party. There is no lesser of two evils, the major parties are equally evil. The best you can do is cast your vote and let your voice be heard.
Your candidate might not win but at least you will be able to walk with your head held high and know you don't bear responsibility for the evils beings committed while they are in office.
'You know, it's entirely acceptable to visit Australia with a regular passport. You don't have to wait for the pendulum to swing back, break an Aussie law, and then "visit" Australia to get the hell out of the US.'
Unless you visit on your own you won't be visiting Australia. I don't believe i have ever heard of a US citizen being extradited to another nation for breaking its laws while on US soil.
'The problem comes about because using a car (for example) is required by law if you wish to drive.'
... i.e. the people who generally earn a lower income.'
I am going to guess that you meant to say that insurance is required to drive. Again, this isn't a problem with for profit entities choosing not to lose money when they have objective tests that tell them that they will lose money without question. That is a social problem. This is a bad example because the genetic problems that car insurance companies would look for would be things that make you unsafe to drive. Being unsafe to drive means you shouldn't be able to drive. The meat of the question though is that sometimes the government requires you to get services from a private company and that company might exclude portions of the public. The solution isn't to bar objective testing that can benefit society as a whole in upcoming generations and make the roads safer. The solution is to get rid of this lobbied, bought, and paid for legislation. Impeachment of any congressperson who voted for laws of this type would probably sent a nice message as well.
If the government genuinely thinks relief is required when one party can't afford to pay their share of damages then said relief should be a public service paid for with taxes. Taxes are already designed to come from the pockets of those who can afford to fund these programs. Auto insurance on the other hand comes out of everyones pocket no matter how poor.
'Inability to get income will cut out many jobs; not so much for the Wall Street types but for the pizza delivery guy, the mover, the trucker,
Not at all, those jobs will still be there. Those jobs will just be filled by those who are able to drive safely and perform the duties of their position. This will result in the jobs being done well and that means better results for the employers and those who use their services. This means as a society we produce more, have a stronger economy, and in general have a greater chance of working toward a world of plenty.
'If you wish to have a free market solution a better way is to have non-discimatory government (basic) insurance, and then allow commercial insurers to have whatever policies they want. That way you have removed a legal protected oligopoly and can allow effective free market solution.'
Actually I wasn't complaining, you were. But now that I get to this part of your post I will say that I agree. So we actually agree that this is an argument against current government policy and not a reason to support this bill since this bill is just another step in the wrong direction.
'The problem arises that people who cannot afford insurance may not be able to get jobs either.'
Right but this isn't about the poor, there are always going to be poor its a mathematical certainty. Those who have difficulty getting jobs (either directly or via lack of insurance) are those who have genetic defects. And before anyone chimes in about 'defect' being subjective. You say a club foot adds character to make the club footer feel good about themselves. They would feel better if they weren't born with a club foot and that makes it a defect. Being unemployed (again, there will always be plenty of unemployed; welcome to the real world where there aren't enough cheerios to go around) means being less likely to get laid and land a mate. That means that these defects will become less and less common.
Will this be abused and does it represent the first step on a path that leads to dark places? Sure does. But so does everything? The only thing that is going to solve that problem is for humans to not be selected.
I think you need to read my post again. Government control of commerce and nationalism are two of my chief complaints.
'You sound as though you believe that there is "a way that things are supposed to be", which is usually the province of those who don't believe in evolution.'
That isn't correct at all. Well it is technically correct and technically doesn't support your conclusion. The province of people who don't believe in evolution doesn't apply to me since I do believe in evolution. Since most people believe in evolution and most people believe in the existence of deities and religion there are no shortage of people who believe in both evolution AND cosmic right and wrong.
But I don't believe in a cosmic right and wrong because I don't believe in a religion or creator and more to the point a cosmic goal. I do believe that right and wrong exist within context though. Once you define a goal then right and wrong suddenly exist, its just that there is no cosmic goal (or at least none with anything remotely resembling supporting evidence). However we have an instinctual desire to perpetuate our species and within that context right and wrong suddenly exist. Natural selection weeds out the genes that break people and perpetuates the genes that make them thrive (that genes that do neither may or may not make it).
Nobody is suggesting that killing off the Hawkings of the world is a good idea but I don't think it would be a good idea to force a construction company to hire him or an insurance company to insure him. After all, his bills are likely enormous and insurance companies are private and must make a profit. If you think Hawking should have his bills paid for him then you need to support public health care, not bankrupting insurance companies.
We are talking about objective tests to screen for objective problems and taking objective actions based upon the results. We aren't talking about screening for a gene that dramatically increases the likelihood of anemia in order to have an article accepted in a peer reviewed journal. I think a logical man like Hawking would agree with this concept. If someone who has a problem gene that is screened for has another trait that is a dramatic improvement and should be carried on then that gene will allow them to successfully mate in spite of difficulties.
Besides, the bright ones don't enslave themselves to employment to others. They have authority issues and make their own way.
That depends on your definition of reverse engineering. In a copyright free code I don't have to reinvent the wheel, I can take the code directly from the disassembled application.
I don't usually complain about moderation but how is this flamebait?
You can't win, the right cuts taxes (for the wealthy) and increases government spending. The left increases taxes (for comfortable individuals) and increases government spending.
Both cut taxes for corporations and increase government handouts to corporations. Both reduce the rights of citizens and grant new ones to corporations. Both support copyright regimes.
The right claims to cater to rural nuts and wins the heart of the 'common man' by claiming that those who educate themselves and have brains 'intellectuals' are somehow bad and shouldn't be listened to. The left claims to cater to those with thoughts and be the party of reason.
Neither lives up to those promises, they just pay lip service to them (although the right is closer, since they are officially in favor of business over individuals they just ignore the rest of the nonsense). Both strengthen the central government, attempt to weaken the judicial branch, and attempt to take all the power upon themselves.
Its a rigged game. The only hope is revolution and revolution won't come. The only ones who have the stomach for violence are the ignorant masses. The only ones bright enough to understand the need are intellectuals who don't have the stomach and still haven't realized that violence sometimes IS the answer.
I'm not saying I have the stomach for revolution either. I'm just stating the facts. I'm just hoping to stay under the radar and hope the march doesn't move so quickly I have to move to another western nation that is a couple steps behind in the process. In the end all governments grow corrupt and must be abolished.
'They also tend to look after business over their own citizens (though I fear that's a cross party issue).'
That seems to be an all candidate issue world-wide.
In a world without copyright (and without software patents), there is no longer a need for the GPL. After all, trade secret as you wish but any software can be disassembled and reverse engineered.
I answered once but let me add to it.
'Why do "good genetics" deserve jobs and superior healthcare?'
Because the genetics employers screen for will be those that produce results that interfere with the duties of the job or jobs in general.
Because superior health care comes with better insurance rates (or fitness to be insured). Insurance companies will no doubt look for genetic traits that lead to illness, death, or otherwise make you too risky to insure. This makes perfect sense, insurance is not a public service, it is a private racket. If you believe there is a social responsibility to help the weak and genetically defective then more power to you but your idea clashes with the current health care system.
'Why do "good genetics" deserve jobs and superior healthcare?'
Refer to natural selection.
'And as for the rest? What do they deserve?'
Not to be selected.
'The rich you see, who by our social standards are the unsuccessful ones thus by your logic have better genes, do not reproduce as much.'
I haven't seen anything to support this assertion. This isn't the 1800's where having lots of sons is beneficial. My experience is that the well off have extreme consistency in selecting attractive mates and squeezing out a few brats. The poor may or may not have brats. As the costs for abortions and the availability of birth control spreads the problem shrinks even more.
I haven't seen any evidence that the poor have larger families than the wealthy anymore. It could be but I doubt it, as for unmarried and unprotected sex the wealthy are just as guilty as the poor. For this class of sex there is probably a greater chance of the wealthy choosing a poor (but attractive) mate. Don't confuse the fact that 99% of the population is poor with poor families having more children.
'The rich you see, who by our social standards are the unsuccessful ones thus by your logic have better genes, do not reproduce as much.'
I don't even follow that. You make a huge unsupported leap in logic here. By 'our' social standards the wealthy are unsuccessful? Who is 'our'? I don't know of any group that views the wealthy as the unsuccessful in any terms. At worst they are considered 'no better'.
I am not saying that society currently rewards the best or the worst. I am saying that genetic screening has the potential to be an objective way to identify bad genetics and that using this information will ultimately help society to reward the best with jobs and superior healthcare.
Just consider the potential, with the genetic testing of tomorrow we might be able to screen out George Bush as a presidential candidate.
You can have your lovey dovey society for now. It wouldn't exist without natural selection. Those 5% aren't meant to succeed in life and if all goes well won't exist within a few generations. Failing in life means that they won't find a mate or will have to settle for an inferior mate.
We aren't talking about discrimination based upon irrelevant genetics. This is like stopping an insurance company from accepting someone with a pre-existing condition that has been diagnosed with an objective test.
Insurance companies are for profit businesses and they do have the great responsibility to the public to be good neighbors that everyone places upon them. These are not charity organizations. They are basically casinos, they are the house and they rig the odds. If you are foolish enough to toss money into the slots you deserve what you get. Choosing to charge higher rates or not to insure high risk clients is no different then the house adjusting the payout below the actual odds.
'Blender also had quite the community - where's the K3D community? Where is that being nurtured/grown?'
From what I can see this question is posted by someone who wants to hijack the Blender community and have it adopt one of these other projects instead. Unfortunately, so far his posts have been vague and he hasn't mentioned one specific design aspect that is superior in these projects. Until he does it just sounds like he thinks everyone should make programs work the way he likes them.
'it started to outgrow itself'
In what manner?
'Blender still suffers from that'
In what way does blender suffer?
'have a solid design which is able to grow'
In what way are the designs solid? What about the design of blender makes it less solid? Specifically what aspect of blender is unable to grow and what is the difference in these other applications that makes them able to grow?
'applications like Maya, Softimage and Houdini have demonstrated that'
In what manner?
'Comparing blender to all of those on a design level makes blender stand out as the toy.'
In what fashion?
Do you have any constructive criticism or is this entire post just a troll? Can you name any specific features, design constructs, or methods that are actually superior in these applications or do you just prefer in the interface in the commercial applications you learned in?
Who has $200 million AND actually wants to reduce the need for oil? Are you one of those who actually believes our dependence upon oil has something to do with a lack of other technology?
except that you don't have the stored chemical energy, you have to get the power for each shot from the ship generators.
Lets stop tiptoeing around it. This is a credible journal but not the first choice because the most obvious choices refused to publish an article on cold fusion no matter how credible the source.
'Why was this article not published in "US military journal of applied physics" (surely there must be something like this)?'
That seems pretty obvious. Cold Fusion is considered junk science in the US and even credible labs releasing credible and reproducible results can't get anything related to Cold Fusion published in a US journal.
Just look at this thread, this is obviously a credible scientific journal and people are already looking for excuses to disregard it.
'This is one of the most ignorant fucking things I have ever read. It is utterly impossible to contract the AIDS virus through any of those methods.'
So you are claiming that when a chain of people all working with sharp objects all handle the same material that cross contamination is impossible? Sorry but if you have infected butchers and cooks handling meat then contaminated meat would actually be fairly common. The butchers can then pass it on to the cooks or either can pass it on to consumers. After all, everyone from the butcher to the consumer is using a knife and can cut themselves. True, two of the links have to be cut for transmission to occur but cuts in meat handling are a daily occurance. Odds are that someone on your block cut themselves preparing meat today.
There is a more important right granted in the constitution that bears directly on stopping corruptions of government. It recognizes that a corrupt government can not be punished under the law because it is able to corrupt the law.
The right in question is the right to bear arms. Hopefully we haven't let that be dilluted to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore.
'Science: Average Good'
Historically Facism produces excellent science. Just look at Germany. During their short term under Hitler they developed the technologies that are the bedrock of all our modern technology. If you count all the scientists that were born of that period they get even more credit.
I was referring to natural selection within the species but you make a good point. I for one don't welcome our AIDS overlords.