So having an "open community" is fine until people start exercising their freedoms by saying bad stuff about the president and other powerful people? Top down editorial control like this just shows how full of it wikipedia is. The openness is just a way for wikipedia inc. to get free content. After getting the free content the leadership/rulers of wikipedia then sort through it, throwing out what they don't want(what doesn't go along w/ their point of view). So, yes, "protection" DOES define wikipedia.
Most people agree on the basic facts of life...so what if wikipedia allows anyone to enter and write "The sky is blue?"
Software radios, while great in concept are not real yet. Notice the mention in TFA about "daughterboards" and how that is convienently forgotten. For every small bit of spectrum you will need a different "daughterboard" to access it. These "software radios" are nothing more than 100 year old superhetrodynes w/ slightly different cores.
Why is Moglen so important? It's assholes like him(lawyers) who made all these problems to begin with. There was a time when if someone had a good idea it was copied and everyone was better for it. Now we have these geeks, like Moglen, who don't even know how to DO anything...law geeks...they just dance around and chant their incantations(statutes) and pretend like they are doing something.
The dream of The International Network, currently refered to as the Internet, may have to be put on hold. However spam and other types of net fraud and hijink already make The International Network an unreality. Would I mind if I can't get spammed and hacked from china...or russia...or any of the places currently that we are all connected to that just seem to send crap? I would be just fine with an internetwork which just encompassed north america. Yes all of the world's peoples need to be able to communicate, but they don't all have to be on the same IP internetwork. Old style BBSes and physically mailing media can create international links and the rest can be done with "wifi" and ethernet. =)
I remember when the internet wasn't so large and easy to access. We all got along fine... who cares about all this? if they make using the 'net cost prohibitive then people will just find better and cheaper ways to link their computers. I don't need some big telco to wipe my ass for me
--we can make our own backbones.
P.S. the telcos and carriers have no leverage because if they deny google access to their networks then all their customers will drop them.
Typical stupid, doctor logic: there is only one cause for any particular set of symptoms. You hear about someone with the sensation of bugs crawling in their skin and you are 100% sure that they are crazy and need anti-psychotics.
Pretty much everyone who has any kind of slightly out of the ordinary disease has been told by an MD that they are imagining it. And MD's love to give out anti-psychotics...because you want to think that every patient that doesn't fit into your prearranged neat little view of human health is crazy. You're probably a shitty doctor that could be replaced by a shell script which greps for keywords(i.e. "rash" "itchy" "bug bite") and prints out prescription forms and referrals. Honestly what good are you as a doctor if all you do is look at the most obvious cause of something and then throw some drugs at it? You think other people can't read? Like we couldn't look through a dermatology textbook and look for pictures of what we have or google for the symptoms? You're not bringing anything more to the table than a fucking book.
Is it a violation if the person who puts said closed source module in a distro just doesn't give a damn and ignores their threatening letters? The hell are they going to do? ooh.. a lawsuit! Who gives a fuck?
Everyone needs to realize if they ignore the licenses then they don't work.
Everyone that supports Kororaa on this should donate a dollar to them via pay pal. I did...and I feel great!
Payment Details
Total Amount:$1.00 USD
Currency:US Dollars
Transaction ID:9423483935Z
Quantity:1
Item/Product Name:Support the Kororaa Project!
Buyer:Your Mother
I wouldn't disagree with what you say except I'll bring up a few points:
1) If there truly are compelling geopolitical reasons(i.e. whose currency is used for oil trading) then domestic opposition can easily be ignored or changed because above all these "conservatives" and "liberals" are loyal to the cause of US power.
2) The Right Wing Israeli lobby is very powerful and has been known to target US politicians that oppose them for "de-election." They are very much desirous of a US-Iran war and their largess and political connections can change the domestic US political landscape that you say will prevent a war.
3) It would be a guerrilla war because if invaded the iranian regular army will quickly collapse and elements of the iranian government and military will fight the ensuing foreign occupation using unconventional warfare. A classic guerrilla war. It doesn't violate the definition of "guerrilla war" to say that one side will be a regular army. In fact, if one side is a regular army that's the best time to use guerrilla warfare because one of the keys to winning a guerrilla war is to have your enemy try to fight you in completely the wrong way.
4) If they can't get domestic support by blowing hot air then they can plant a suitcase nuke on an iranian flying into this country. It's not like mass murderers are above lying a little to be able to do what they do.
With all that said I have no idea whether we'll go to war.
Godwin's law isn't irrelevant "political correctness." People just bring him up all the goddamn time and it gets annoying and dumb because it's usually not a good comparison. People that don't know hardly anything about national socialism throw the names around like they have some sort of expertise. Using mussolini would NOT violate Godwin's law.. but since he was an ally of nazi germany there should probably be an amendment added. The over use of the Nazi comparison stems from how WWII has been enshrined in American culture as "that great, wonderful war." We were 100% good and they were 100% bad. All the other subsequent conflicts the US has been involved in have been much messier and don't create such wonderful bad guys(except for US leaders.) So we keep using Hitler. Why not compare Bush to Johnson and Nixon who carried out the genocide of 4 million vietnamese and then quelched domestic dissent. The story of how a man like Johnson can kill so many people and get away with it is much more interesting and relevant than a guy who DIDN'T get away with it. You're using "Hitler" as a archetype, not as a real person. The use of Nazi's in conversations allows people to focus on evil people instead of evil systems. It's a naive way of thinking and makes people afflicted by it incapable of detecting oppression when it's not called oppression.
"If we can't cite Hitler, we can't learn from our mistakes. "
Though Hitler and the national socialists can often be used to good effect in a conversation or discussion the fact remains that there have been plenty of bad, fascist, etc people since then(and before. Most people have very little historical knowledge so Hitler is brought up as the prototypical evil guy because he's recognizable. For example if people compared Bush to Tito hardly anyone would know who Tito was. So Hitler is used not because he's the best example but because he's the ONLY example that most people could recognize. Use of the nazi's in an example outside of discussions of early 20th century history is not appropriate--it is only a sign of intellectual laziness or ignorance on the part of the writer and reader.
Comparing republicans to national socialists is just not a very good comparision and neither is comparing bush to hitler. Adolph Hitler AS A SINGLE MAN had all of state power in his hands. Bush doesn't have nearly that level of TRUE POWER. Bush rules at the whim of the other elites. Bush is a figure head. Hitler was NOT a figure head. Hitler rose to power due to his own cunning. He was a nobody who took the nazi part from just a group that had little get togethers and speeches to forming the third reich. Bush was simply born into his position. To compare Bush to Hitler is to insult Hitler's intelligence and cunning. In addition, the American people are not the German people.
It's not that you shouldn't compare Bush to Hitler because Bush isn't as bad as Hitler. It's that they just aren't that much alike. When you use bad examples like that it leads to bad results. Bush will never pass an "enabling law" like Hitler did so when you compare him to Hitler people are going to be like, "well you're flat out wrong because we just had an election and elected a new guy." You've got to update your examples to more relevant to the post-industrial, nominally democratic 21st century USA.
Godwin's Law, whatever it's original intention, is more relevant now than ever as 25 years have passed and thus we have 25 years of more relevant fucked up shit to compare things to now and don't have to keep digging into the 1930's and 40's for material. If you want to throw an insult at bush just call him a "son of a bitch" or a "bastard." Don't try to disguise insults as intellectual discussion.
No, not everyone agrees that bank robbery should be a federal crime. All you really need is a task force of representatives from the various state law enforcement agencys to help them coordinate when bank robbers cross state lines. We have this thing called "high-speed telecommunications" that they didn't have in the 1930's. It's not by chance that the FBI balloon into (among other things) investigating bank robbery right when the rest of the federal government ballooned. Unfortunately there's the American tendency to treat everything that the government does as right and appropriate just because they've gotten away with it for so long. Given the gross abuses of power that the FBI has been involved in there are very good reasons for not having a federal police force. At some point "these United States" became "THE United States" but the US constitution was never changed to reflect this transfer of all power from the states and the people to the federal government. The Constitution never grants the federal government police power. Individual states have "police power." The "unenumerated powers" are de facto, not de jure, and thus illegal. Meanwhile people that think like you are the reason the feds are taping all our phones and email without warrants or probable cause. Thanks for fucking up our country.
ANY state secrets are incompatible with an open, democratic government. What's the great need that we're fulfilling by spying on the rest of the world? Largest military, most nukes, most money, no enemys(no I don't count a few dirty people in caves in afghanistan as enemys), we're untouchable--no need for spying. Governments are always going to try to grab more power and fuck over the people. That's a given. So invariably they will do things in secret, but let's at least not make their secrecy legal!
There is a very substantive difference between giving your son your watch when you die and giving your son that $10 billion you have socked away. The watch is a very simple process, however the turning over of the $10 billion requires massive support from the State, which is why there is a tax on it and why the inheritance of such ridiculously large fortunes is questioned at all. Anyone who thinks that they won't be able to give their son their watch because billionaires can't make their sons and daughters into living gods really needs to get a grip on reality and realize exactly what economic class they are in.
But the pre-capitalist elites would never have agreed to the development of capitalism if there wasn't some mechanism for retaining privilege across generations.
You can keep pretending your life is exciting driving around doing "autocross" with your dodge neon, pretending to be a knight with your toy swords, pretending to be james bond or whatever shooting your guns at the range, but your just some harmless tool with an overactive imagination.
1)Target practice FPS games aren't popular. FPS games were lots of people get shot and blown up are. You CANNOT replicate those in real life.
2)Hand guns are very dangerous, even in the hands of someone who is familiar and comfortable with them...perhaps even MORE dangerous because one(and you clearly are since you said "ZERO") becomes complacent.
3)It's great that you somehow bought a handgun without any paperwork or hassle but in a lot of areas that's illegal.
4)Why don't you pitch your idea for live action counter-strike to your local law enforcement agencies?
Slashdot Mirror
"If left-click was hard-coded to open, none of these things would work."
None of those things "work" anyway, since you're running winblowz.
So having an "open community" is fine until people start exercising their freedoms by saying bad stuff about the president and other powerful people? Top down editorial control like this just shows how full of it wikipedia is. The openness is just a way for wikipedia inc. to get free content. After getting the free content the leadership/rulers of wikipedia then sort through it, throwing out what they don't want(what doesn't go along w/ their point of view). So, yes, "protection" DOES define wikipedia.
Most people agree on the basic facts of life...so what if wikipedia allows anyone to enter and write "The sky is blue?"
Software radios, while great in concept are not real yet. Notice the mention in TFA about "daughterboards" and how that is convienently forgotten. For every small bit of spectrum you will need a different "daughterboard" to access it. These "software radios" are nothing more than 100 year old superhetrodynes w/ slightly different cores.
It's because he's a _damn jew_ who knows nothing about our country.
Why is Moglen so important? It's assholes like him(lawyers) who made all these problems to begin with. There was a time when if someone had a good idea it was copied and everyone was better for it. Now we have these geeks, like Moglen, who don't even know how to DO anything...law geeks...they just dance around and chant their incantations(statutes) and pretend like they are doing something.
Who gives a shit what some lawyer thinks about technology? he's like one of those suck up kids in school who was on the student council.
The dream of The International Network, currently refered to as the Internet, may have to be put on hold. However spam and other types of net fraud and hijink already make The International Network an unreality. Would I mind if I can't get spammed and hacked from china...or russia...or any of the places currently that we are all connected to that just seem to send crap? I would be just fine with an internetwork which just encompassed north america. Yes all of the world's peoples need to be able to communicate, but they don't all have to be on the same IP internetwork. Old style BBSes and physically mailing media can create international links and the rest can be done with "wifi" and ethernet. =)
I remember when the internet wasn't so large and easy to access. We all got along fine... who cares about all this? if they make using the 'net cost prohibitive then people will just find better and cheaper ways to link their computers. I don't need some big telco to wipe my ass for me
--we can make our own backbones.
P.S. the telcos and carriers have no leverage because if they deny google access to their networks then all their customers will drop them.
Typical stupid, doctor logic: there is only one cause for any particular set of symptoms. You hear about someone with the sensation of bugs crawling in their skin and you are 100% sure that they are crazy and need anti-psychotics. Pretty much everyone who has any kind of slightly out of the ordinary disease has been told by an MD that they are imagining it. And MD's love to give out anti-psychotics...because you want to think that every patient that doesn't fit into your prearranged neat little view of human health is crazy. You're probably a shitty doctor that could be replaced by a shell script which greps for keywords(i.e. "rash" "itchy" "bug bite") and prints out prescription forms and referrals. Honestly what good are you as a doctor if all you do is look at the most obvious cause of something and then throw some drugs at it? You think other people can't read? Like we couldn't look through a dermatology textbook and look for pictures of what we have or google for the symptoms? You're not bringing anything more to the table than a fucking book.
Habitual and systematic use of antibiotics by farmers is a much bigger problem than use by sick humans.
Is the RIAA going to start suing the manufacturers of RAM because their RAM is used to buffer their content??
Is it a violation if the person who puts said closed source module in a distro just doesn't give a damn and ignores their threatening letters? The hell are they going to do? ooh.. a lawsuit! Who gives a fuck?
Everyone needs to realize if they ignore the licenses then they don't work.
Kernel modules take care of this problem quite well. If a proprietary part of the kernel stops working you just don't load it. It's pretty simple.
If you don't include basic stuff, even if it's "proprietary", like video drivers then your OS will definitely be years behind.
Everyone that supports Kororaa on this should donate a dollar to them via pay pal. I did...and I feel great! Payment Details Total Amount:$1.00 USD Currency:US Dollars Transaction ID:9423483935Z Quantity:1 Item/Product Name:Support the Kororaa Project! Buyer:Your Mother
If lying your way into a war isn't an impeacheable offense then nothing is.
I wouldn't disagree with what you say except I'll bring up a few points:
1) If there truly are compelling geopolitical reasons(i.e. whose currency is used for oil trading) then domestic opposition can easily be ignored or changed because above all these "conservatives" and "liberals" are loyal to the cause of US power.
2) The Right Wing Israeli lobby is very powerful and has been known to target US politicians that oppose them for "de-election." They are very much desirous of a US-Iran war and their largess and political connections can change the domestic US political landscape that you say will prevent a war.
3) It would be a guerrilla war because if invaded the iranian regular army will quickly collapse and elements of the iranian government and military will fight the ensuing foreign occupation using unconventional warfare. A classic guerrilla war. It doesn't violate the definition of "guerrilla war" to say that one side will be a regular army. In fact, if one side is a regular army that's the best time to use guerrilla warfare because one of the keys to winning a guerrilla war is to have your enemy try to fight you in completely the wrong way.
4) If they can't get domestic support by blowing hot air then they can plant a suitcase nuke on an iranian flying into this country. It's not like mass murderers are above lying a little to be able to do what they do.
With all that said I have no idea whether we'll go to war.
Godwin's law isn't irrelevant "political correctness." People just bring him up all the goddamn time and it gets annoying and dumb because it's usually not a good comparison. People that don't know hardly anything about national socialism throw the names around like they have some sort of expertise. Using mussolini would NOT violate Godwin's law.. but since he was an ally of nazi germany there should probably be an amendment added. The over use of the Nazi comparison stems from how WWII has been enshrined in American culture as "that great, wonderful war." We were 100% good and they were 100% bad. All the other subsequent conflicts the US has been involved in have been much messier and don't create such wonderful bad guys(except for US leaders.) So we keep using Hitler. Why not compare Bush to Johnson and Nixon who carried out the genocide of 4 million vietnamese and then quelched domestic dissent. The story of how a man like Johnson can kill so many people and get away with it is much more interesting and relevant than a guy who DIDN'T get away with it. You're using "Hitler" as a archetype, not as a real person. The use of Nazi's in conversations allows people to focus on evil people instead of evil systems. It's a naive way of thinking and makes people afflicted by it incapable of detecting oppression when it's not called oppression.
"If we can't cite Hitler, we can't learn from our mistakes. "
Though Hitler and the national socialists can often be used to good effect in a conversation or discussion the fact remains that there have been plenty of bad, fascist, etc people since then(and before. Most people have very little historical knowledge so Hitler is brought up as the prototypical evil guy because he's recognizable. For example if people compared Bush to Tito hardly anyone would know who Tito was. So Hitler is used not because he's the best example but because he's the ONLY example that most people could recognize. Use of the nazi's in an example outside of discussions of early 20th century history is not appropriate--it is only a sign of intellectual laziness or ignorance on the part of the writer and reader.
Comparing republicans to national socialists is just not a very good comparision and neither is comparing bush to hitler. Adolph Hitler AS A SINGLE MAN had all of state power in his hands. Bush doesn't have nearly that level of TRUE POWER. Bush rules at the whim of the other elites. Bush is a figure head. Hitler was NOT a figure head. Hitler rose to power due to his own cunning. He was a nobody who took the nazi part from just a group that had little get togethers and speeches to forming the third reich. Bush was simply born into his position. To compare Bush to Hitler is to insult Hitler's intelligence and cunning. In addition, the American people are not the German people.
It's not that you shouldn't compare Bush to Hitler because Bush isn't as bad as Hitler. It's that they just aren't that much alike. When you use bad examples like that it leads to bad results. Bush will never pass an "enabling law" like Hitler did so when you compare him to Hitler people are going to be like, "well you're flat out wrong because we just had an election and elected a new guy." You've got to update your examples to more relevant to the post-industrial, nominally democratic 21st century USA.
Godwin's Law, whatever it's original intention, is more relevant now than ever as 25 years have passed and thus we have 25 years of more relevant fucked up shit to compare things to now and don't have to keep digging into the 1930's and 40's for material. If you want to throw an insult at bush just call him a "son of a bitch" or a "bastard." Don't try to disguise insults as intellectual discussion.
No, not everyone agrees that bank robbery should be a federal crime. All you really need is a task force of representatives from the various state law enforcement agencys to help them coordinate when bank robbers cross state lines. We have this thing called "high-speed telecommunications" that they didn't have in the 1930's. It's not by chance that the FBI balloon into (among other things) investigating bank robbery right when the rest of the federal government ballooned. Unfortunately there's the American tendency to treat everything that the government does as right and appropriate just because they've gotten away with it for so long. Given the gross abuses of power that the FBI has been involved in there are very good reasons for not having a federal police force. At some point "these United States" became "THE United States" but the US constitution was never changed to reflect this transfer of all power from the states and the people to the federal government. The Constitution never grants the federal government police power. Individual states have "police power." The "unenumerated powers" are de facto, not de jure, and thus illegal. Meanwhile people that think like you are the reason the feds are taping all our phones and email without warrants or probable cause. Thanks for fucking up our country.
ANY state secrets are incompatible with an open, democratic government. What's the great need that we're fulfilling by spying on the rest of the world? Largest military, most nukes, most money, no enemys(no I don't count a few dirty people in caves in afghanistan as enemys), we're untouchable--no need for spying. Governments are always going to try to grab more power and fuck over the people. That's a given. So invariably they will do things in secret, but let's at least not make their secrecy legal!
tsia
There is a very substantive difference between giving your son your watch when you die and giving your son that $10 billion you have socked away. The watch is a very simple process, however the turning over of the $10 billion requires massive support from the State, which is why there is a tax on it and why the inheritance of such ridiculously large fortunes is questioned at all. Anyone who thinks that they won't be able to give their son their watch because billionaires can't make their sons and daughters into living gods really needs to get a grip on reality and realize exactly what economic class they are in.
But the pre-capitalist elites would never have agreed to the development of capitalism if there wasn't some mechanism for retaining privilege across generations.
You can keep pretending your life is exciting driving around doing "autocross" with your dodge neon, pretending to be a knight with your toy swords, pretending to be james bond or whatever shooting your guns at the range, but your just some harmless tool with an overactive imagination.
1)Target practice FPS games aren't popular. FPS games were lots of people get shot and blown up are. You CANNOT replicate those in real life.
2)Hand guns are very dangerous, even in the hands of someone who is familiar and comfortable with them...perhaps even MORE dangerous because one(and you clearly are since you said "ZERO") becomes complacent.
3)It's great that you somehow bought a handgun without any paperwork or hassle but in a lot of areas that's illegal.
4)Why don't you pitch your idea for live action counter-strike to your local law enforcement agencies?