Stallman's view is that proprietary software is bad for the user
This is his theory. In practice proprietary software beats the pants off free software in user experience. Not all proprietary software obviously. But the best of proprietary software is way out ahead of the best of free software. In design, in localisation, in accessibility, in ease of use.
Your rights maybe, but not my rights. I'm better served by public domain open source, both when I've released software as open source and when I've used others open source.
GPL has only ever restricted what I want to do with open source software, not given me more freedom.
The idea that he's fought for my rights is laughable.
Pointing out right wing Zionists are fucktards doesn't make me an Arab. Your assumption is wrong.
It does make me a reasonable person though, who appreciates the finest news broadcaster in the world.
Again, you picked The Daily Mail as your source. The British newspaper equivalent of Fox News. Which just underlies what a fucktard you are. And means your opinion on the qualities of the news media to be worthless.
Of the ones you list, the reference that's instantly clear to me is Tony Martin. He laid in wait with a shotgun to kill burglars. And then shot and killed one in the back as he was trying to escape through a window.
Waiting there with a shotgun might be reasonable. Shooting intruders that are advancing might be reasonable. Killing them as they are leaving is not.
I looked up the penknife one. It seems it was a bit of a story in the US, but not in the UK. In the UK, no one wants people carrying knives as weapons. This dumb American disregarded UK law, and was rightly prosecuted for it. There is no evidence she was attacked.
The UK is not America, thankfully. Just because Americans think all the world should be like their country doesn't mean it should be.
There are 3 ways of doing it, all legitimate. You can subscribe and see the posts early. You can see the posts on firehose and guess which stories will make the front page. Or you can just be aware of the tech news stories of the day, and predict what will come up that way.
Write your opinion.
Then you need to wait for the story to come up. Possibly using a webpage change monitoring app with built in search. Or maybe just by lurking.
Or course you'd only go to that effort if you're either very keen to get moderated up on slashdot and get lots of replies. Or if you really care about the topic really strongly.
And Slashdot is full or both of those kinds of people. Although the specific topic they obsess about varies.
Everyone here that posts has an agenda to put forward.
Saying NYT made an incorrect calculation and explaining why is fine. But what was Apple's tax rate, then? If you can't answer that, then you can't say the figure itself is incorrect, only the means used to arrive at it.
Anyone can answer that very easily. It's in the 10K.
24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Even without looking that the 10K you could have said NYT was wrong. Apple is in huge growth. Their revenue for each year is far more than the year before. So unless you match revenue year and tax year correctly you're bound to get a massively wrong number.
UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later.
No. In all UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is not on you to prove that your self defence was reasonable, but on the prosecution to show that it was not.
Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.
The UK police don't prosecute, judge nor sentence people.
The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.
You're welcome to your opinion. But it is only your opinion. It's not a right in any real sense.
There's nothing illegal about self defence in the UK. But it has to be reasonable. Proportional to the threat. Not vigilante justice.
Larkin goes way beyond reasonable. He advocates ignoring what the actual threat is, and just "splintering" joints or destroying (killing) people. Just in case. And that's not reasonable in UK law.
You'd need more than just frequency. You'd need some reasonable objection to what they were saying, or reasonable fear of harm. Sadly you can't stick a restraining order on a chugger for example.
(Charity mugger - the ones that try to get you to sign up for a regular donation to their charity.)
He's not been banned under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act. He's been refused entry because "his presence here was not conducive to the public good".
The UK is a country that allows Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews in, but keeps martial artists and talk radio hosts who have committed no crime out.
There's a huge difference between refusing entry and deporting. A "Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews" from outside the EU would undoubtably also be refused entry.
Michael Savage (the talk show host) was denied entry because he was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence".
In the UK, it means "acting in a manner that has "caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household".
Read on in Wikipedia. Thats the out of date 1998 act. The 2003 act is more specific and sets out the particular activities that are classed as anti-social under the law.
I also go back that far, and I believe it's an anachronism. We called them VAXes back then, not VANen. They *xen meme smells more 1990s than 1970s. But even if there were some were calling them VAXen back then it's still wrong. It's just bad English.
Reading down this far, at the point in time I'm reading, there aren't any. Lots of denialists, coming up with all sorts of nonsense, some of it relating to AGW. Some scientific people calling them out on this nonsense. But not a single person claiming it's proof of AGW.
Scientifically minded people know that 12 months is weather, not climate, and contiguous states of the US isn't global. This doesn't even approach significance for global warming.
We might declare that a coin is "probably biased towards heads" if in 10 flips it lands heads 9 times.
You might, if you're an idiot. An intelligent person might say it's (more than a little) biased if it lands on heads 90% of the time. There's no need for absolutes and using small numbers.
A proper test would consider only 10 flips
100 flips is better. 1000 flips is better still. Of course for the same degree of bias you're looking for 90%. You'll just be more sure that you have the right result the more you consider.
You become really cretinous when you say " it landed heads 9 out of the last 10 times that its flipped". Flipped 9 times in a row had no part of the rule that was set. Even for the 10 flips, 9 in a row was not required. HHHHTHHHHH passes the rule but doesn't have 9 heads in a row.
Of course you probably want to blame this stupidity on the other side. But there is no other side. All this jibberish came from you. Even as an attempt at a straw man, it shows how little you yourself understand trivial probability.
Slashdot Mirror
You think this is creepy... You should have seen some of the comments here about Steve Jobs when he was dying.
Stallman's view is that proprietary software is bad for the user
This is his theory. In practice proprietary software beats the pants off free software in user experience. Not all proprietary software obviously. But the best of proprietary software is way out ahead of the best of free software. In design, in localisation, in accessibility, in ease of use.
Your rights maybe, but not my rights. I'm better served by public domain open source, both when I've released software as open source and when I've used others open source.
GPL has only ever restricted what I want to do with open source software, not given me more freedom.
The idea that he's fought for my rights is laughable.
Oh it's very long and detailed. I have an opinion on a lot of things. What's yours?
Pointing out right wing Zionists are fucktards doesn't make me an Arab. Your assumption is wrong.
It does make me a reasonable person though, who appreciates the finest news broadcaster in the world.
Again, you picked The Daily Mail as your source. The British newspaper equivalent of Fox News. Which just underlies what a fucktard you are. And means your opinion on the qualities of the news media to be worthless.
Of the ones you list, the reference that's instantly clear to me is Tony Martin. He laid in wait with a shotgun to kill burglars. And then shot and killed one in the back as he was trying to escape through a window.
Waiting there with a shotgun might be reasonable. Shooting intruders that are advancing might be reasonable. Killing them as they are leaving is not.
I looked up the penknife one. It seems it was a bit of a story in the US, but not in the UK. In the UK, no one wants people carrying knives as weapons. This dumb American disregarded UK law, and was rightly prosecuted for it. There is no evidence she was attacked.
The UK is not America, thankfully. Just because Americans think all the world should be like their country doesn't mean it should be.
There are 3 ways of doing it, all legitimate. You can subscribe and see the posts early. You can see the posts on firehose and guess which stories will make the front page. Or you can just be aware of the tech news stories of the day, and predict what will come up that way.
Write your opinion.
Then you need to wait for the story to come up. Possibly using a webpage change monitoring app with built in search. Or maybe just by lurking.
Or course you'd only go to that effort if you're either very keen to get moderated up on slashdot and get lots of replies. Or if you really care about the topic really strongly.
And Slashdot is full or both of those kinds of people. Although the specific topic they obsess about varies.
Everyone here that posts has an agenda to put forward.
Oh right, you're a Zionist. Even more of a fucktard then.
Saying NYT made an incorrect calculation and explaining why is fine. But what was Apple's tax rate, then?
If you can't answer that, then you can't say the figure itself is incorrect, only the means used to arrive at it.
Anyone can answer that very easily. It's in the 10K.
24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Even without looking that the 10K you could have said NYT was wrong. Apple is in huge growth. Their revenue for each year is far more than the year before. So unless you match revenue year and tax year correctly you're bound to get a massively wrong number.
Right. So you use the Daily Mail as your news service of choice, and think the BBC is vile garbage.
You're a complete fucktard.
In England it is illegal to encourage people to protect their own life.
No it's not. Why bother posting such drivel?
UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later.
No. In all UK law you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is not on you to prove that your self defence was reasonable, but on the prosecution to show that it was not.
Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.
The UK police don't prosecute, judge nor sentence people.
The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.
You're welcome to your opinion. But it is only your opinion. It's not a right in any real sense.
There's nothing illegal about self defence in the UK. But it has to be reasonable. Proportional to the threat. Not vigilante justice.
Larkin goes way beyond reasonable. He advocates ignoring what the actual threat is, and just "splintering" joints or destroying (killing) people. Just in case. And that's not reasonable in UK law.
You'd need more than just frequency. You'd need some reasonable objection to what they were saying, or reasonable fear of harm. Sadly you can't stick a restraining order on a chugger for example.
(Charity mugger - the ones that try to get you to sign up for a regular donation to their charity.)
He's not been banned under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act. He's been refused entry because "his presence here was not conducive to the public good".
The UK is a country that allows Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews in, but keeps martial artists and talk radio hosts who have committed no crime out.
There's a huge difference between refusing entry and deporting. A "Muslim clerics who call for the extermination of Jews" from outside the EU would undoubtably also be refused entry.
Michael Savage (the talk show host) was denied entry because he was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence".
The US also has strong restrictions on entry, so this isn't unprecedented. Indeed recently the US denied entry to a couple of British teens on the basis of a humorous tweet.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Twitter-Department-Homeland-Security-British-Couple-Denied-Entry-tweets,news-14043.html
In the UK, it means "acting in a manner that has "caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household".
Read on in Wikipedia. Thats the out of date 1998 act. The 2003 act is more specific and sets out the particular activities that are classed as anti-social under the law.
Some would argue that English is poorly pronounced French.
I know where it's from. Yet, as VAX isn't a word from Old English, it shouldn't have an Old English plural. It should have a Modern English plural.
Stupid cunt.
Perhaps you're just not hacker enough :-)
Well, I don't have a neckbeard, thankfully.
I also go back that far, and I believe it's an anachronism. We called them VAXes back then, not VANen. They *xen meme smells more 1990s than 1970s. But even if there were some were calling them VAXen back then it's still wrong. It's just bad English.
VAXes, not VAXen.
Why? Because hand-counting is far more inaccurate than machine counting.
Not if the machine is faulty or there is voter fraud. Both of which happens way too often in US elections.
Hand counting with oversight by representatives of both parties is the most secure and reliable and therefore accurate system there is.
Yes, hand counting will be out by 10s or hundreds of votes. Whilst faulty or fraudulent machines can push that up into thousands.
Reading down this far, at the point in time I'm reading, there aren't any. Lots of denialists, coming up with all sorts of nonsense, some of it relating to AGW. Some scientific people calling them out on this nonsense. But not a single person claiming it's proof of AGW.
Scientifically minded people know that 12 months is weather, not climate, and contiguous states of the US isn't global. This doesn't even approach significance for global warming.
We might declare that a coin is "probably biased towards heads" if in 10 flips it lands heads 9 times.
You might, if you're an idiot. An intelligent person might say it's (more than a little) biased if it lands on heads 90% of the time. There's no need for absolutes and using small numbers.
A proper test would consider only 10 flips
100 flips is better. 1000 flips is better still. Of course for the same degree of bias you're looking for 90%. You'll just be more sure that you have the right result the more you consider.
You become really cretinous when you say " it landed heads 9 out of the last 10 times that its flipped". Flipped 9 times in a row had no part of the rule that was set. Even for the 10 flips, 9 in a row was not required. HHHHTHHHHH passes the rule but doesn't have 9 heads in a row.
Of course you probably want to blame this stupidity on the other side. But there is no other side. All this jibberish came from you. Even as an attempt at a straw man, it shows how little you yourself understand trivial probability.