You are making the same mistake that people who insist on coming up with DRM schemes make...
A DRM scheme is an attempt at giving someone the encrypted file and the decription key, with the intent of protecting the content against that precise someone. GPG, on the other hand, is a scheme which attempts to protect the encrypted files from those who do not have the decription key.
The DOS command line did not run a modern computing system not even when it was first released. Every command line I've ever seen has all of one real UI difference with the DOS commandline -- variable color. That's it.
There is no way to say this kindly, so here it goes: if that's the only difference you know of between the DOS command line and, say, bash, then you are not qualified to compare command line shells.
Two values were considered: the value of letting a company set whatever price it wants on the goods it sells, and the value of having small book sellers. They decided that it was worth sacrificing the first one in order to preserve the second one.
This may not agree with the choice you would have made, but from there to concluding that that's anti-capitalistic is, well, a big jump, unless being capitalistic means deciding that the value of unregulated trade is before all others. In fact, if that is the case, then please name a non anti-capitalistic regime. I posit that you will not be able to name any: of course, each country will have different sets of values that it considers more worthy of preservation than unregulated free trade, but that's hardly an objection.
The rhetoric at the time from Sadam was the rhethoric from Sadam. If his words are the basis for your actions, well, it is you who are to blame. They did not find chemical WMDs in any usable state. And so on, and so forth...
I'm sorry, but I will stop here. I do not think I can reason with you.
People who support evolution are not looking for proof, because they know that none exist. You cannot prove anything, except analytical truths like the theorems mathematicians prove.
Can't it be that they are not anti-capitalist, but simply anti-capitalism-let-loose?
Does being capitalist mean you have to support anyone doing anything? Do you have an example of a country in which this capitalism you imagine actually is implemented? It does not have to exist in the present, for the sake of the argument you can name any past country, too.
This just being the latest (though admittedly I don't care much about this Amazon thing). What really pissed me off was all of their moral high ground posturing when we went into Iraq. Then to find out the real reason they didn't want to get involved was because they were gaming the oil for food program.
So you are saying that the fact that they (as most of the world) insisted at the time that the official arguments for going into Iraq were false, and that they (as most of the world) turned out to be right, is irrelevant?
There are all kinds of needs not being met. Does your views on what an ideal free market overrule whatever morality sense you might or might not have, that you are in fact saying that it is correct that all those needs be satisfied? I hear there is a quite needy market for, say, snuff movies...
Up to the obvious change of times and vocabulary, and the fact that the book was written before the same time the US declared its independence, you can read pretty much the same in Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, for example, and in the writings of essentially every humanist economist.
Well, the well-being of a whole economy is a bit more complicated that the simple lowering of the prices of some goods. This is quite basic, and has been analyzed to death a few thousand times. For example, see the book by Adam Smith (you just have to get past the part where the nice imagery about the invisible hand is used and gointo the actual analysis)
Well, the well-being of local economies includes the well-being of local providers. Wal-mart ends up being the analogue of out-sourcing for supermarkets. And we all know how happy out-sourcing makes people...
Slashdot Mirror
Your spelling leads to the same conclusion, funnily enough.
You must be really fun at parties.
What you want is those medical records/taxes/bank records encrypted or otherwise secured. DRM is a very specific thing which is not that.
You are making the same mistake that people who insist on coming up with DRM schemes make...
A DRM scheme is an attempt at giving someone the encrypted file and the decription key, with the intent of protecting the content against that precise someone. GPG, on the other hand, is a scheme which attempts to protect the encrypted files from those who do not have the decription key.
It is not that difficult, really...
It is hard to take him seriously if he does not know that 42 is the right answer!
I do not think that applies when the consequences are the only logical ones one could have possibly expected...
There is no way to say this kindly, so here it goes: if that's the only difference you know of between the DOS command line and, say, bash, then you are not qualified to compare command line shells.
The DOS command line did not run a modern computing system not even when it was first released.
Oh, I know that. My question was actually an abbreviation of "what? are you 14 and smsing this to your friends, OMGPONIESSS"? ;-)
"@"?!
Using gnome hurts the community?
So `freedom' for you means that you should be able to use anyone's code under the licence you choose. Quite a comfortable position!
Two values were considered: the value of letting a company set whatever price it wants on the goods it sells, and the value of having small book sellers. They decided that it was worth sacrificing the first one in order to preserve the second one.
This may not agree with the choice you would have made, but from there to concluding that that's anti-capitalistic is, well, a big jump, unless being capitalistic means deciding that the value of unregulated trade is before all others. In fact, if that is the case, then please name a non anti-capitalistic regime. I posit that you will not be able to name any: of course, each country will have different sets of values that it considers more worthy of preservation than unregulated free trade, but that's hardly an objection.
Hmm, I never called you a troll...
The rhetoric at the time from Sadam was the rhethoric from Sadam. If his words are the basis for your actions, well, it is you who are to blame. They did not find chemical WMDs in any usable state. And so on, and so forth...
I'm sorry, but I will stop here. I do not think I can reason with you.
People who support evolution are not looking for proof, because they know that none exist. You cannot prove anything, except analytical truths like the theorems mathematicians prove.
As for discarded evidence, well, references?
Can't it be that they are not anti-capitalist, but simply anti-capitalism-let-loose? Does being capitalist mean you have to support anyone doing anything? Do you have an example of a country in which this capitalism you imagine actually is implemented? It does not have to exist in the present, for the sake of the argument you can name any past country, too.
Indeed, that is why the market of multi-million appartments facing the Seine died a few centuries ago. The rich have fled.
So you are saying that the fact that they (as most of the world) insisted at the time that the official arguments for going into Iraq were false, and that they (as most of the world) turned out to be right, is irrelevant?
There are all kinds of needs not being met. Does your views on what an ideal free market overrule whatever morality sense you might or might not have, that you are in fact saying that it is correct that all those needs be satisfied? I hear there is a quite needy market for, say, snuff movies...
Up to the obvious change of times and vocabulary, and the fact that the book was written before the same time the US declared its independence, you can read pretty much the same in Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, for example, and in the writings of essentially every humanist economist.
Well, the well-being of a whole economy is a bit more complicated that the simple lowering of the prices of some goods. This is quite basic, and has been analyzed to death a few thousand times. For example, see the book by Adam Smith (you just have to get past the part where the nice imagery about the invisible hand is used and gointo the actual analysis)
Much as refusing to take vaccines...
Well, the well-being of local economies includes the well-being of local providers. Wal-mart ends up being the analogue of out-sourcing for supermarkets. And we all know how happy out-sourcing makes people...
It is not that difficult: you'll find a brief summary in this post, http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=422664&cid=22092262
Lowering the prize is not always the best for consumers, in the long run.
aproximately in a similar way as, say, you can use Apache?