Ah! A proponent of the idea that the homeless, at some point in their lives, decided against a penthouse with a view to Central Park and monthly vacations on the French riviera... Good.
And how exactly can an application decide if theother is malicious or not? You appear to believe the Windows executable format has the analogue of an evil bit...
And you know this how exactly? I assume you have access to the source of the thing? Or you're basing your claim on a piece of text written by the marketing department?
The last time I logged into a "real user" Windows desktop, all the apps I saw looked different. Even applications from the *same* Microsoft Office suite use different widgets, and behave in wildly differing ways---and let us simply not go into the details of the horridness of all instant messaging apps, all manufacturer-provided apps that deal with hardware, anti-virus, media players, and what not. "Completely different" is the new "good", judging from the evidence.
I would be very surprised if, under a serious evaluation, the way applications "render" on the Windows platform, with applications installed to match, say, a default ubuntu install in functionality, even came close the the more or less uniform way an ubuntu desktop "renders".
Certain jobs you might have tend to chip away at your freedoms in exchange for taking the job. It is not like a member of the military is free to go and come from work as he pleases. Nor is a police officer free to rummage through your stuff for gifts for his children.
In what way is a police officer not being free to rummage through your stuff an example of someone chipping away at his freedoms in exchange for taking the job?
Well, not doing things inspired in mild socialism (for, let's be adults here, there is nothing in Obama that screams "Socialist!", really) has not exactly worked wonders... and even quite primitive animals learn that if you keep doing the same things you'll get pretty much the same results. Of course, we are talking about Rush here, so primitive animals are probably not a good parameter...
No, I'm not. If you think individuals are unfit to make their own economic decisions, you're arguing for a government controlled economy. Period. End of story. And a government controlled economy entails all the consequences I've laid out.
You are the one who introduced forcefully-clothed individuals into the discussion...
The problem is, not all decisions are decisions for an individual to make, because not all decisions have consequences that involve only individuals.
Of course the US can use the word as best it sees fit. I was only remarking on how similar to the construction of a doublespeak the change of meaning was.
You are arguing against an extreme form of something that I have not argued for. Government owned mills?!
You really think there was nothing to be done with respect to, say, the recent loan debacle? Since you have to assume that agents were acting rationally (for otherwise your theory does not apply) and that they were maximizing their individual benefit, the current crisis is either a good thing in your eyes or... or what? really, I cannot think of any other way to view it from that perspective.
(Actually, I know how you view it: you view it as yet another example of the evilness of intervention, following a line of reasoning worth of A Real Scotsman)
It is a trivial fact that local maximization of an objective does not lead to anything even close to a global maximum. Indeed, generically the behaviour is exactly the opposite; history is there to provide examples.
And please do not retort with more "government owned mills", for that simply is a reflection of your inability to consider the immense half-way ground there is between your dreaded dystopia, in which you are told which clothes to wear by The Government, and putting in practice the quite obviously wrong principle of locally directed, greedy (in the sense of greedy algorithms) maximization.
So you are saying that Obama wants the common good, that Rush wants the common good, and that Rush wants Obama to fail (at least, that's what he himself says). What does "failing" mean in this context, apart from "not succeeding in getting close to a state of greater common good"? How can you possibly interpret that as "common good" in order to make the clam that Rush wants the common good valid?
My point is, Rush does not want Obama to succeed because that would imply that his ideas are not as absurd as he pretends them to be, and that you can partake of some of the socialist ideas and be at the same time successful. That's being idiotically ideological.
By the way: I don't know what your definition of Liberalism is, but I do know that in politics, terms like Liberal and Conservative have different meanings depending on the country. It's most likely not a US v the rest of the world kind of thing.
The meaning of "liberal" as used in the US is essentially unique to the US.
The strawman of "having Washington telling people what clothes to wear" was built by yourself, so I'll leave you to deal with it yourself.
As the world wakes up every day to the big chaos that is the financial situation, are you really claiming that "owners and consumers [are those] who actually have extremely close and detailed knowledge of the situation"?
But what Obama wants, presumably, is the common good, and his plans are but means to that end. Rush is simply being idiotically idiological, in the most stupid way.
By the way: I find it amazing the way the US has brute forced the word "liberalism" into meaning exactly the opposite of what it used to mean...
Not really. The recent experience i had with that was when i went and installed all the mainstream distros under VirtualBox because i was packaging my code for most of them.
Some of them come with hundreds of megabytes worth of locale data for obscure languages that i will never ever use, and default to several gigs of installation size, without ever asking if i wanted office productivity suites installed on my dev boxen or not.
Figuring out and uninstalling the nonnecessary cruft is nontrivial, and often impossible because of deep dependencies between packages, especially in Gnome and KDE desktop suites.
Well, the whole point of having many distros is that you can pick the one appropriate for you. I guess you picked those distros that are set up so that everyone can use them regardless of their language, and which include all the apps approximately 99% of the computer users will ever need... That you are complaining means only that you do not understand this, not a hint that all distros should do what you aparently want them to (and, remark, the reason you were packaging your app for those distros might have something to do with the fact that they have *lots* of users, and that in turn is not unrelated to the fact that they include pretty much that normal people do find necessary, and other things that normal people do not care in the utmostly small bit about, but do not mind either because to does not hurt them)
For what it does, Windows XP is much leaner memory wise than a functionally equivalent linux distribution. Something with drivers, 3D acceleration, etc.
Is there a Linux istro comparablto Windows XP? You'd have to remove essentially everything except a text editor that feels like it was written in the 80s and Solitaire...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah! A proponent of the idea that the homeless, at some point in their lives, decided against a penthouse with a view to Central Park and monthly vacations on the French riviera... Good.
Why wouldn't you just lower taxes if you meant for citizens to have more money?
Indeed! After all, that people have more and more money is the unique and absolute purpose for any kind of organized society!
Now do Bush. I'd love the analogue of your first paragraph for G W Bush. Pleeeeease.
And how exactly can an application decide if theother is malicious or not? You appear to believe the Windows executable format has the analogue of an evil bit...
The disclaimers are not exactly a beta thing. Do you thing they do not make the exact same disclaimers on their actual released versions?!
Running rm -rf / as root will not be stopped when it deletes the command itself. Try it in a VM.
And you know this how exactly? I assume you have access to the source of the thing? Or you're basing your claim on a piece of text written by the marketing department?
The last time I logged into a "real user" Windows desktop, all the apps I saw looked different. Even applications from the *same* Microsoft Office suite use different widgets, and behave in wildly differing ways---and let us simply not go into the details of the horridness of all instant messaging apps, all manufacturer-provided apps that deal with hardware, anti-virus, media players, and what not. "Completely different" is the new "good", judging from the evidence.
I would be very surprised if, under a serious evaluation, the way applications "render" on the Windows platform, with applications installed to match, say, a default ubuntu install in functionality, even came close the the more or less uniform way an ubuntu desktop "renders".
Closing the camp was a PR move and a waste of taxpayer money.
And sending those detainees there was a infinite lack of basic morality.
Certain jobs you might have tend to chip away at your freedoms in exchange for taking the job. It is not like a member of the military is free to go and come from work as he pleases. Nor is a police officer free to rummage through your stuff for gifts for his children.
In what way is a police officer not being free to rummage through your stuff an example of someone chipping away at his freedoms in exchange for taking the job?
Well, not doing things inspired in mild socialism (for, let's be adults here, there is nothing in Obama that screams "Socialist!", really) has not exactly worked wonders... and even quite primitive animals learn that if you keep doing the same things you'll get pretty much the same results. Of course, we are talking about Rush here, so primitive animals are probably not a good parameter...
Of all the biases exhibited here at Slashdot---and there are many!---the bias favoring low-id users is probably the most idiotic.
No, I'm not. If you think individuals are unfit to make their own economic decisions, you're arguing for a government controlled economy. Period. End of story. And a government controlled economy entails all the consequences I've laid out.
You are the one who introduced forcefully-clothed individuals into the discussion...
The problem is, not all decisions are decisions for an individual to make, because not all decisions have consequences that involve only individuals.
mashup?! *sigh*
Of course the US can use the word as best it sees fit. I was only remarking on how similar to the construction of a doublespeak the change of meaning was.
You are arguing against an extreme form of something that I have not argued for. Government owned mills?!
You really think there was nothing to be done with respect to, say, the recent loan debacle? Since you have to assume that agents were acting rationally (for otherwise your theory does not apply) and that they were maximizing their individual benefit, the current crisis is either a good thing in your eyes or... or what? really, I cannot think of any other way to view it from that perspective.
(Actually, I know how you view it: you view it as yet another example of the evilness of intervention, following a line of reasoning worth of A Real Scotsman)
It is a trivial fact that local maximization of an objective does not lead to anything even close to a global maximum. Indeed, generically the behaviour is exactly the opposite; history is there to provide examples.
And please do not retort with more "government owned mills", for that simply is a reflection of your inability to consider the immense half-way ground there is between your dreaded dystopia, in which you are told which clothes to wear by The Government, and putting in practice the quite obviously wrong principle of locally directed, greedy (in the sense of greedy algorithms) maximization.
So you are saying that Obama wants the common good, that Rush wants the common good, and that Rush wants Obama to fail (at least, that's what he himself says). What does "failing" mean in this context, apart from "not succeeding in getting close to a state of greater common good"? How can you possibly interpret that as "common good" in order to make the clam that Rush wants the common good valid?
My point is, Rush does not want Obama to succeed because that would imply that his ideas are not as absurd as he pretends them to be, and that you can partake of some of the socialist ideas and be at the same time successful. That's being idiotically ideological.
By the way: I don't know what your definition of Liberalism is, but I do know that in politics, terms like Liberal and Conservative have different meanings depending on the country. It's most likely not a US v the rest of the world kind of thing.
The meaning of "liberal" as used in the US is essentially unique to the US.
The strawman of "having Washington telling people what clothes to wear" was built by yourself, so I'll leave you to deal with it yourself.
As the world wakes up every day to the big chaos that is the financial situation, are you really claiming that "owners and consumers [are those] who actually have extremely close and detailed knowledge of the situation"?
But what Obama wants, presumably, is the common good, and his plans are but means to that end. Rush is simply being idiotically idiological, in the most stupid way.
By the way: I find it amazing the way the US has brute forced the word "liberalism" into meaning exactly the opposite of what it used to mean...
The whole point of the capitalistic system is that the individual knows what is best for themselves.
The thing is, this is very rarely the case...
No company can screw up an economy the way government can.
But lots of them surely can.
Not really. The recent experience i had with that was when i went and installed all the mainstream distros under VirtualBox because i was packaging my code for most of them.
Some of them come with hundreds of megabytes worth of locale data for obscure languages that i will never ever use, and default to several gigs of installation size, without ever asking if i wanted office productivity suites installed on my dev boxen or not.
Figuring out and uninstalling the nonnecessary cruft is nontrivial, and often impossible because of deep dependencies between packages, especially in Gnome and KDE desktop suites.
Well, the whole point of having many distros is that you can pick the one appropriate for you. I guess you picked those distros that are set up so that everyone can use them regardless of their language, and which include all the apps approximately 99% of the computer users will ever need... That you are complaining means only that you do not understand this, not a hint that all distros should do what you aparently want them to (and, remark, the reason you were packaging your app for those distros might have something to do with the fact that they have *lots* of users, and that in turn is not unrelated to the fact that they include pretty much that normal people do find necessary, and other things that normal people do not care in the utmostly small bit about, but do not mind either because to does not hurt them)
For what it does, Windows XP is much leaner memory wise than a functionally equivalent linux distribution. Something with drivers, 3D acceleration, etc.
Is there a Linux istro comparablto Windows XP? You'd have to remove essentially everything except a text editor that feels like it was written in the 80s and Solitaire...
It is 0.1 lower than the current US unemployment. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
Yes, because an anecdote proves that.
Your observation is born out of either sheer dishonesty, or plain stupidity...