"Because a corporation is basically nothing but a group of people working together.
No, it's not, it has a lot of rights people don't have and in general manages not to have many of the responsibilities.
You're saying it's okay to deny their property rights simply because they've formed a group."
No, I'm saying it's okay to demand that entities (people, corps, whatever) pay some of their profit back into the society from which they have directly benefited. A society without which they would not have educated or healthy workers, a society without which there would be no road infrastructure to ship goods etc etc. No man is an island.
If it's okay to deny one group of people their property rights and force them to give their stuff to other people, then it's equally okay to deny that second group's rights and take the stuff back.
No it isn't. Blatantly, there are differences between contributing profit into the government and theft from the poor. Unless you have no moral code.
"Taking possessions from people against their will is morally wrong no matter how you try to justify it."
Taxing profit is not taking possessions from people. Letting people starve because you believe in the absolute nature of property rights is morally wrong, no matter how YOU try and justify it.
"taxing corporations in order to feed the poor sectors" is inherently prejudicial.
Please explain how a tax on business profits to feed the poor is "prejudicial"?
You'd rather people starve or rely on charity? Welcome to grinding poverty and people starving to death. Whatever your "moral" feelings about tax and people or corporations right to keep their profits, you have to realise that no man (or company) is an island. Without the society they are in they would not be able to get where they are. Contributing back (yes, forced contributions in the form of tax) is not immoral in that light.
Pure libertarianism is a recipe for disaster, poverty, concentration of wealth and power, abuse of the weak and, before long, an aristocracy and indentured servitude for the rest.
Dunno, the Euro appears to be pretty strong right now too.
I wish the pound was. I'm planning to emigrate in a few months, if the currency tanks any further then my savings won't be worth **** in Australia. I was going to have a year off.
Yes, brilliant, lets all use our windows libraries that we obviously have lying around, obviously have licenses for, and obviously are permitted to by microsoft.
Having said that, the NSLU2 is end-of-life now and is a little limited (32MB of RAM). You might want to check out something a little more modern if you're interested in an always on low-power linux server:
NSLU2 + bus-powered USB drive + debian + torrentflux-b4rt
Max 10W drain, with one drive it's nearer 5W. Add in ushare and you have a low energy box that has a web interface for torrenting stuff and can stream the results to your xbox. All for $60 (or so) and the price of the drive.
I own a eee 901 with an Intel Atom chip. It's fantastic. Small, light, battery lasts 6-8 hours, you can watch movies on it, it doesn't take up much room in your bag, it's built ruggedly enough (and cost little enough) that I feel I can throw it around without too much bother...
I wouldn't have wanted my vaio with me on my month-long trip to australia in October, but the eee was perfect.
Mine now runs Debian, but I could do most stuff with the Xandros that came on it.
It may surprise you, but in ten years of using Linux, I've *never* built a custom kernel.
Having said that, the package manager for Ubuntu is the same as for Debian. I don't know if it would barf, but you take the risk of making it less useful if you mess with too many things. You know, like if you installed a package and then deleted a library it provides, you'd end up with a system that thought it had a capability and would be happy to install dependents, but they'd never run.
Oh I know that now, and there's even an environment variable pointing to it. However, as a UNIX focused software team, we weren't aware that we were "supposed" to do that and for it to change in such a weird and secretive way threw us for a while.
You think this will affect any decisions then you're sadly misguided. If it's anything like the UK one - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ - all that will happen is the government will use things that fit its agenda to claim it's doing what people want, whilst fobbing off the most popular questions/petitions with "we don't care, we're right on this regardless of what you think" put in only slightly more flowery words.
It's another exercise in government cynicism, so they can point out how much they're listening.
"Or you can store the configuration file in the user's Application Data folder."
Not useful when the user has to edit config files for processes that run as other users or system accounts.
"Given that Windows XP was available for at least 5-years, and that it was transitioning the traditional "full-access desktop" to "limited-access", there was plenty of time to prepare for users no longer having that level of access. In fact, most corporate environments don't give full system access, and some are even further locked down by preventing right-clicking."
It's not corporate desktop software, it's server software. User1 edits the config file (or so they think, actually they are editing a mapped file in a virtual file system made by windows under the covers), User1 then starts the service running as one of the system accounts, service can't see alterations. All of this happens without anyone ever being informed about access problems, it took us ages to figure out what had happened.
"If it's imperative that all users have full write access to the main application folder, just modify the security descriptors to allow normal users write access. This is easily done in the install process, which is guarenteed to have admin privilages."
The install process is not guaranteed admin access, though when it comes to setting up services the admin must do it. However, UAC still does it's silent redirecting thing for admins, AFAICT.
I was considering flaming you, then I remembered that Ubuntu did the same to me. I'm a fairly hardcore linux user (Software Engineer, posix threads, C and crypto, amatteur and professional Linux sysadmin) and *I* got pissed off with it.
Could not get any of the nVidia blobs playing nicely with my laptop, alsa sound needed rebuilding to detect the headphone jack, a bunch of other stuff. And then on upgrade it would undo all the work I'd done to get it going and I'd have to solve the same problems again.
I solved it by switching to Debian, but then I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty, just annoyed when I can't see how or why things are broken.
UAC is also what's responsible for the Program Files change which, as a developer of commercial software, came as a surprise and an annoyance.
It's not that you can't write to Program Files after the product is installed, it's that windows silently reroutes all interacation withe Program Files via a virtual disk store under the user's "Documents and Settings" area. The user is none the wiser. The application is none the wiser. BUT the moment User2 comes along and runs the app, he doesn't get the config file that User1 has edited, oh no, he gets the original one, the one User1 spent hours creating has been hidden away by windows.
That's what pisses me off about UAC. If "Program Files" was read-only we could detect it and warn the user to store config somewhere else. As it is we have to say either "switch off UAC" or "Install our stuff somewhere else", neither of which I like.
Oh, UAC is also the **** that stops me running things with helpful messages about the actions of some fictional sysadmin. I installed an ext2 file system driver under vista and set it to be loaded at startup. What happens? Every boot I get a helpful little message saying "Windows has prevented this program from running". Great! Really bloody helpful! Then when I delve further in I get various messages about this admin guy (if I ever find that dude he's toast) having set up system policy to prevent it starting.
No, if UAC was *just* asking about privilege escalation, I'd still find it annoying that so many things seem to trigger it, but as it is they made a total hash of it.
Eh, you spend just as much time trying to get windows to work.
Windows is not only not free but you actually pay MS for the privilege of fighting with it to get things working.
Macs only "Just Work" because of the hardware monoculture. You could easily pick the "perfect" hardware set for linux or windows and have them just work to the same extent.
What it means is that the OS is open, the java based framebuffer "desktop" and some of the applications (dialer, SMS, web browser (though not google gears, that comes as a binary) and a variety of other bits.
You don't use a direct transfer for paying for goods, that's what credit/debit cards are for. You use it for transferring money to friends/family. That was the niche of the cheque book previously.
In the UK, sending money by account number & routing number (sort code) is free and how we usually achieve the above.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because a corporation is basically nothing but a group of people working together.
No, it's not, it has a lot of rights people don't have and in general manages not to have many of the responsibilities.
You're saying it's okay to deny their property rights simply because they've formed a group."
No, I'm saying it's okay to demand that entities (people, corps, whatever) pay some of their profit back into the society from which they have directly benefited. A society without which they would not have educated or healthy workers, a society without which there would be no road infrastructure to ship goods etc etc. No man is an island.
If it's okay to deny one group of people their property rights and force them to give their stuff to other people, then it's equally okay to deny that second group's rights and take the stuff back.
No it isn't. Blatantly, there are differences between contributing profit into the government and theft from the poor. Unless you have no moral code.
"Taking possessions from people against their will is morally wrong no matter how you try to justify it."
Taxing profit is not taking possessions from people. Letting people starve because you believe in the absolute nature of property rights is morally wrong, no matter how YOU try and justify it.
"taxing corporations in order to feed the poor sectors" is inherently prejudicial.
Please explain how a tax on business profits to feed the poor is "prejudicial"?
You'd rather people starve or rely on charity? Welcome to grinding poverty and people starving to death. Whatever your "moral" feelings about tax and people or corporations right to keep their profits, you have to realise that no man (or company) is an island. Without the society they are in they would not be able to get where they are. Contributing back (yes, forced contributions in the form of tax) is not immoral in that light.
Pure libertarianism is a recipe for disaster, poverty, concentration of wealth and power, abuse of the weak and, before long, an aristocracy and indentured servitude for the rest.
It is a step backwards to the medieval.
Cool, remind me to buy Chrysler, Ford or GM next time I need a car. Mmmm, sweet, US taxpayer funded automobile.
So taxing corporations in order to feed poor sectors of society is wrong?
How very American.
Dunno, the Euro appears to be pretty strong right now too.
I wish the pound was. I'm planning to emigrate in a few months, if the currency tanks any further then my savings won't be worth **** in Australia. I was going to have a year off.
Yes, brilliant, lets all use our windows libraries that we obviously have lying around, obviously have licenses for, and obviously are permitted to by microsoft.
No thanks, wine without windows is what we need.
Good for you, and your parent.
Now just how many people, professionally or otherwise, do you think give a flying crap about mathematical formulae?
A very, very small percentage.
Having said that, the NSLU2 is end-of-life now and is a little limited (32MB of RAM). You might want to check out something a little more modern if you're interested in an always on low-power linux server:
http://www.cyrius.com/debian/orion/qnap/ts-109/
NSLU2 + bus-powered USB drive + debian + torrentflux-b4rt
Max 10W drain, with one drive it's nearer 5W. Add in ushare and you have a low energy box that has a web interface for torrenting stuff and can stream the results to your xbox. All for $60 (or so) and the price of the drive.
I don't know, but in the UK we have had people held for "forgetting".
It's a terrible law, like many others.
Me!
I own a eee 901 with an Intel Atom chip. It's fantastic. Small, light, battery lasts 6-8 hours, you can watch movies on it, it doesn't take up much room in your bag, it's built ruggedly enough (and cost little enough) that I feel I can throw it around without too much bother...
I wouldn't have wanted my vaio with me on my month-long trip to australia in October, but the eee was perfect.
Mine now runs Debian, but I could do most stuff with the Xandros that came on it.
It may surprise you, but in ten years of using Linux, I've *never* built a custom kernel.
Having said that, the package manager for Ubuntu is the same as for Debian. I don't know if it would barf, but you take the risk of making it less useful if you mess with too many things. You know, like if you installed a package and then deleted a library it provides, you'd end up with a system that thought it had a capability and would be happy to install dependents, but they'd never run.
Oh I know that now, and there's even an environment variable pointing to it. However, as a UNIX focused software team, we weren't aware that we were "supposed" to do that and for it to change in such a weird and secretive way threw us for a while.
Decision?
You think this will affect any decisions then you're sadly misguided. If it's anything like the UK one - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ - all that will happen is the government will use things that fit its agenda to claim it's doing what people want, whilst fobbing off the most popular questions/petitions with "we don't care, we're right on this regardless of what you think" put in only slightly more flowery words.
It's another exercise in government cynicism, so they can point out how much they're listening.
At home, when I realised that it's what was causing the problems? Yes.
At work, when it would have to go in our product manual? No.
"Or you can store the configuration file in the user's Application Data folder."
Not useful when the user has to edit config files for processes that run as other users or system accounts.
"Given that Windows XP was available for at least 5-years, and that it was transitioning the traditional "full-access desktop" to "limited-access", there was plenty of time to prepare for users no longer having that level of access. In fact, most corporate environments don't give full system access, and some are even further locked down by preventing right-clicking."
It's not corporate desktop software, it's server software. User1 edits the config file (or so they think, actually they are editing a mapped file in a virtual file system made by windows under the covers), User1 then starts the service running as one of the system accounts, service can't see alterations. All of this happens without anyone ever being informed about access problems, it took us ages to figure out what had happened.
"If it's imperative that all users have full write access to the main application folder, just modify the security descriptors to allow normal users write access. This is easily done in the install process, which is guarenteed to have admin privilages."
The install process is not guaranteed admin access, though when it comes to setting up services the admin must do it. However, UAC still does it's silent redirecting thing for admins, AFAICT.
I was considering flaming you, then I remembered that Ubuntu did the same to me. I'm a fairly hardcore linux user (Software Engineer, posix threads, C and crypto, amatteur and professional Linux sysadmin) and *I* got pissed off with it.
Could not get any of the nVidia blobs playing nicely with my laptop, alsa sound needed rebuilding to detect the headphone jack, a bunch of other stuff. And then on upgrade it would undo all the work I'd done to get it going and I'd have to solve the same problems again.
I solved it by switching to Debian, but then I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty, just annoyed when I can't see how or why things are broken.
It's a constant annoyance.
UAC is also what's responsible for the Program Files change which, as a developer of commercial software, came as a surprise and an annoyance.
It's not that you can't write to Program Files after the product is installed, it's that windows silently reroutes all interacation withe Program Files via a virtual disk store under the user's "Documents and Settings" area. The user is none the wiser. The application is none the wiser. BUT the moment User2 comes along and runs the app, he doesn't get the config file that User1 has edited, oh no, he gets the original one, the one User1 spent hours creating has been hidden away by windows.
That's what pisses me off about UAC. If "Program Files" was read-only we could detect it and warn the user to store config somewhere else. As it is we have to say either "switch off UAC" or "Install our stuff somewhere else", neither of which I like.
Oh, UAC is also the **** that stops me running things with helpful messages about the actions of some fictional sysadmin. I installed an ext2 file system driver under vista and set it to be loaded at startup. What happens? Every boot I get a helpful little message saying "Windows has prevented this program from running". Great! Really bloody helpful! Then when I delve further in I get various messages about this admin guy (if I ever find that dude he's toast) having set up system policy to prevent it starting.
No, if UAC was *just* asking about privilege escalation, I'd still find it annoying that so many things seem to trigger it, but as it is they made a total hash of it.
Eh, you spend just as much time trying to get windows to work.
Windows is not only not free but you actually pay MS for the privilege of fighting with it to get things working.
Macs only "Just Work" because of the hardware monoculture. You could easily pick the "perfect" hardware set for linux or windows and have them just work to the same extent.
That old quote is bullshit.
You're doing something wrong...
VLC is the answer to your video playback ills.
As for screens, they are a pain to get going at all, but once running I've never even heard of cursors being misaligned.
"Starks and the teacher trying to indoctrinate the kids into their respective camps is what's harmful."
What, trying to expose kids to Linux when all they get at school and at home is Windows monoculture, that's indoctrination?
That's an incredibly weird viewpoint you have there.
"Both of them are missing the point. Linux or Windows will both do the job and then some when it comes to educating kids."
That's nothing to do with the point! The point is an ignorant teacher confiscating Linux disks and telling kids they're illegal!
Get your head out of your anus.
Wow, OK, never heard of that before. It's a few years since I worked in the payment industry though.
It means you can get the source....
You did miss a link, not on code.google.com, but at android.com -
http://source.android.com/download
What it means is that the OS is open, the java based framebuffer "desktop" and some of the applications (dialer, SMS, web browser (though not google gears, that comes as a binary) and a variety of other bits.
You don't use a direct transfer for paying for goods, that's what credit/debit cards are for. You use it for transferring money to friends/family. That was the niche of the cheque book previously.
In the UK, sending money by account number & routing number (sort code) is free and how we usually achieve the above.