Unless, of course, what's being censorsed is a religious belief or viewpoint. In which case, those required to pay for and utilize the public school system had better just shut their mouths and do as the goverment says.
The point is that the government ought not being telling them what to do regarding religion. The teachers/admins are payed out of the tax dollars so some restraint on their part is understandable - they also chose that profession and in a public venue. Children are not payed and are not (yet) public servants.
The definition only requires the attempt to "remove or suppress". This would fall under "suppress". You ask, "What is wrong with that?". Little-to-no market-based accountability. That is my biggest concern.
The concept is much simpler: All posts start at one and what I'd like to see is the ABSOLUTE VALUE of all moderation changes. E.g., if a posts gets mod'd up 11 and down 11 that would be something I want to see even if it is still at 1. Posts that have not provoked a ratings change... yawn?
Do the rest of us a favor who do not see an FBI agent around every corner, stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.
Definition of censor. The FBI is hardly needed to meet the definition. Also, if that "administrative attempt" is at a public school where children are - by law - required to spend about 1/4 to 1/2 their waking time (during the school year) then they deserve every constitutional protection. Yes, yes, private schools exist. In practice, only so many people can afford that option. Those required to pay for and utilize the public school system have every right to oppose any "administrative attempt".
How about linking to awards from opinionjournal.com or nationalreview.com?? Oh, its because it doesn't fit with your political biases and would actually serve to get both sides of the story.
You could of linked to their awards just now. Browsing the front pages of those two sites, I see no awards. Could you find the links?
Actually, I just added a +6 to all such "off topic" "troll" or "flaimbait" posts. They deserve props for letting me see these first.
I have also neutralized people's Karam advantage and put ACs on equal footing.
Bravo.
PS: It was a surprise seeing the "doggie" post then it was like "oh yeah, i just switched those settings..."
Re:Things to remember
on
Gas Goes Solid
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It could do "a) cool the engine" and might obliterate the need to recycle coolant. As to "b) drive a small turbine" - huh? Standing water does not drive turbines AFAIK. It needs to have kinetic (waterjet) or potential (waterfall) energy.
Alcohol has a great deal of health benefits especially for the portly folks out there. People (especially thin ones) otherwise taking care of their heart are less likely to benefit.
"Sadly enough, as much as I want one of these for my wall, the market is willing to bear these prices. How long will it be before this hardware becomes affordable?"
It is such a frivilous expenditure and the price is coming down fast. I'm inclinded to think if you can covet it, you can afford it. However, it is a luxury in most applications, so what's the biggie?
This reminds me - and no it is not a flame - whatever happened to the people of Slashdot in the boom-bust cycle of the internet? Is their a short, one-page, behind-the-music-like summary of this microcosm of e-sanity? No sordid details, just, was it worthwhile? What should have been done different, if anything?
Chernow labors mightily to set Standard's commercial accomplishments reasonably straight. He identifies correctly the factors that account for the early growth of the firm (entrepreneurship, economies of scale, technological innovation) and its ability to maintain market leadership. He also identifies correctly the changing market conditions at the turn of the century that eroded Standard's market share prior to the antitrust suits. Indeed, Chernow even admits that the subsequent legal actions may have been "superfluous." --D.T. Armentano, author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure
Monopoly wasn't the issue. You were complaining about not being able to buy a Wintel PC without the "W". Second, I don't consider Microsoft to be in a monopoly position (if that) of any substance.
Coercive monopolies (which you will shortly misinterpret) are a problem, e.g., the government theft (err, regulation) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Being IP, you ought not even use the monopoly terminology towards MSFT unless you wish to join the anti-piracy statists who will restrict any freedom to insure your digital purity. Write a song, you have - in a manner of speaking - a monopoly on that work.
Again, if the/. crowd were philosophically consistent regarding IP issues, they would be a great defender of MSFT on many of the BS issues (not all issues, to be certain). That is not to say you love them. Much like AOL, hate them all you want and seek a better path but don't question the right of 90%+ to choose the same solution. You are promoting thought control of sorts on the software level.
I can live with 99% of people using the same software just as I lived when 99% of people didn't have PC's. Might right to be in that 1% is what matters.
And another thing, how come there aren't more (as opposed to some) complaints about not being able to buy Apple computers without an Apple OS? Hypocrisy? Not really, the reason is few people are educated on the underlying principles.
You just don't get it. You are under no obligation to do business with these people. "Call it whatever you want"... how about a bad deal for some people? If you are not specifically knowledgable in these matters, you can't expect to get the best price. If someone can't read a EULA prior to purchase, then I support their decision to return said product if they choose not to agree with its terms. That's the risk merchandisers take by hiding contracts.
"Lets not forget, there's the MS tax which anyone buyinga pre-made computer must pay, and MS does not offer rebates for those who don't want Windows."
This gets back to my basic point. If you don't want to people spreading FUD&LIES about Unix, then don't do it about Windows. Computers are availabe (from Wal-Mart, no less) without Windows and have been for as long as the invention of the computer. You simply are not telling the truth. Besides, "tax" is not the appropriate word in this instance. Annoyance, perhaps - tax, no. Please correct this error then maybe there is reason to continue the discussion.
Simply, being "convicted" of violating one of millions of stupid laws is (often) of no more substance than speeding. As to whether or not they should be trusted, if it is your money, trust nobody (or "Trust but verify." - you get the point - few guarantees).
My point remains: You want to get away from charges of communism, then stop needless attacks on somewhat-free enterprises. You may also want to learn some free-market theory to learn why charges "anti-competive" behavior against a business is asinine nearly to the point of disbelief.
The best way to fight BS charges is for the Linux community to stop making up its own charges against Microsoft. Time is not free and until people start to price it into ALL software decisions, it is likely stupid squabbles will remain. Get down to dollars and cents.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay with credit card and dispute the charge if you don't have that rebate in 8 weeks. It has worked for me: broken rebate = broken product.
Unless, of course, what's being censorsed is a religious belief or viewpoint. In which case, those required to pay for and utilize the public school system had better just shut their mouths and do as the goverment says.
The point is that the government ought not being telling them what to do regarding religion. The teachers/admins are payed out of the tax dollars so some restraint on their part is understandable - they also chose that profession and in a public venue. Children are not payed and are not (yet) public servants.
Where's the censor ship?
The definition only requires the attempt to "remove or suppress". This would fall under "suppress". You ask, "What is wrong with that?". Little-to-no market-based accountability. That is my biggest concern.
The concept is much simpler: All posts start at one and what I'd like to see is the ABSOLUTE VALUE of all moderation changes. E.g., if a posts gets mod'd up 11 and down 11 that would be something I want to see even if it is still at 1. Posts that have not provoked a ratings change ... yawn?
Do the rest of us a favor who do not see an FBI agent around every corner, stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.
Definition of censor. The FBI is hardly needed to meet the definition. Also, if that "administrative attempt" is at a public school where children are - by law - required to spend about 1/4 to 1/2 their waking time (during the school year) then they deserve every constitutional protection. Yes, yes, private schools exist. In practice, only so many people can afford that option. Those required to pay for and utilize the public school system have every right to oppose any "administrative attempt".
How about linking to awards from opinionjournal.com or nationalreview.com?? Oh, its because it doesn't fit with your political biases and would actually serve to get both sides of the story.
You could of linked to their awards just now. Browsing the front pages of those two sites, I see no awards. Could you find the links?
It is interesting how many educational institutions get the award. Maybe they will finally learn something.
Actually, I just added a +6 to all such "off topic" "troll" or "flaimbait" posts. They deserve props for letting me see these first.
I have also neutralized people's Karam advantage and put ACs on equal footing.
Bravo.
PS: It was a surprise seeing the "doggie" post then it was like "oh yeah, i just switched those settings..."
It could do "a) cool the engine" and might obliterate the need to recycle coolant. As to "b) drive a small turbine" - huh? Standing water does not drive turbines AFAIK. It needs to have kinetic (waterjet) or potential (waterfall) energy.
You know, it sounds a lot like the borg!
When a borg dies it stinks up the joint until the disintegrator finally gets around to clean-up on aisle 34982.
661196 of 663365
Research Channel
Alcohol has a great deal of health benefits especially for the portly folks out there. People (especially thin ones) otherwise taking care of their heart are less likely to benefit.
"...Slashdot lends itself to (1) most readers clicking on the linked article (something you'll never see (sadly) with CNN)..."
What is the "sad" part? That people do not click or that CNN consistently fails (though not always) to post appropriate, outbound links?
If you want to keep something fresh - really fresh - use a microwave instead of a cabinet. The seal is tighter. Then there is the fridge...
"Sadly enough, as much as I want one of these for my wall, the market is willing to bear these prices. How long will it be before this hardware becomes affordable?"
It is such a frivilous expenditure and the price is coming down fast. I'm inclinded to think if you can covet it, you can afford it. However, it is a luxury in most applications, so what's the biggie?
Maybe my boss will finally give me my own office.
This reminds me - and no it is not a flame - whatever happened to the people of Slashdot in the boom-bust cycle of the internet? Is their a short, one-page, behind-the-music-like summary of this microcosm of e-sanity? No sordid details, just, was it worthwhile? What should have been done different, if anything?
Courts judge the law, not the truth. Even a commie ought know that.
FYI: This isn't flaimbait. I used to post to /. some years ago - pity how little this community has grown.
I question your interpretation of history. Here is a reference since you left that out:
Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
By Ron Chernow
ISBN:0679438084
Chernow labors mightily to set Standard's commercial accomplishments reasonably straight. He identifies correctly the factors that account for the early growth of the firm (entrepreneurship, economies of scale, technological innovation) and its ability to maintain market leadership. He also identifies correctly the changing market conditions at the turn of the century that eroded Standard's market share prior to the antitrust suits. Indeed, Chernow even admits that the subsequent legal actions may have been "superfluous." --D.T. Armentano, author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure
Monopoly wasn't the issue. You were complaining about not being able to buy a Wintel PC without the "W". Second, I don't consider Microsoft to be in a monopoly position (if that) of any substance.
/. crowd were philosophically consistent regarding IP issues, they would be a great defender of MSFT on many of the BS issues (not all issues, to be certain). That is not to say you love them. Much like AOL, hate them all you want and seek a better path but don't question the right of 90%+ to choose the same solution. You are promoting thought control of sorts on the software level.
Coercive monopolies (which you will shortly misinterpret) are a problem, e.g., the government theft (err, regulation) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Being IP, you ought not even use the monopoly terminology towards MSFT unless you wish to join the anti-piracy statists who will restrict any freedom to insure your digital purity. Write a song, you have - in a manner of speaking - a monopoly on that work.
Again, if the
I can live with 99% of people using the same software just as I lived when 99% of people didn't have PC's. Might right to be in that 1% is what matters.
And another thing, how come there aren't more (as opposed to some) complaints about not being able to buy Apple computers without an Apple OS? Hypocrisy? Not really, the reason is few people are educated on the underlying principles.
You just don't get it. You are under no obligation to do business with these people. "Call it whatever you want"... how about a bad deal for some people? If you are not specifically knowledgable in these matters, you can't expect to get the best price. If someone can't read a EULA prior to purchase, then I support their decision to return said product if they choose not to agree with its terms. That's the risk merchandisers take by hiding contracts.
"Lets not forget, there's the MS tax which anyone buyinga pre-made computer must pay, and MS does not offer rebates for those who don't want Windows."
This gets back to my basic point. If you don't want to people spreading FUD&LIES about Unix, then don't do it about Windows. Computers are availabe (from Wal-Mart, no less) without Windows and have been for as long as the invention of the computer. You simply are not telling the truth. Besides, "tax" is not the appropriate word in this instance. Annoyance, perhaps - tax, no. Please correct this error then maybe there is reason to continue the discussion.
What BS? It's not like they killed a guy.
Simply, being "convicted" of violating one of millions of stupid laws is (often) of no more substance than speeding. As to whether or not they should be trusted, if it is your money, trust nobody (or "Trust but verify." - you get the point - few guarantees).
My point remains: You want to get away from charges of communism, then stop needless attacks on somewhat-free enterprises. You may also want to learn some free-market theory to learn why charges "anti-competive" behavior against a business is asinine nearly to the point of disbelief.
The best way to fight BS charges is for the Linux community to stop making up its own charges against Microsoft. Time is not free and until people start to price it into ALL software decisions, it is likely stupid squabbles will remain. Get down to dollars and cents.