> I'm sure lots of people would be interested in your, um, various parts.;-)
And that's why the icelandic approach is not ideal. You want to harm pornography? make its copyright unenforceable, and prevent selling it in your country.
If there is less money in making it, I guess there will be less people doing it.
If OTOH pornography is something more than a way of making money, but a way to shape society, this too would fail.
If you see the effects of pornography it's nothing like what they told us in the 70s. According to such propaganda we now should be enlightened and relaxed in our ways to deal with the other sex. No way. No fucking way, I'd rather say.
In fact, since it can be defined as "the abstraction of online activities", it exist as such. Argue that and I'll argue you are a not a person, you are a bunch of cells.
The article which I won't bother reading makes a mistake: the cyberspace can sure be a concept. Those trying to map real world concept to cyberspace fail, they do it mostly on purpose to enforce censorship. That has nothing to do with the validity of cyberspace per se.
You must be quite a paranoid guy if you think that a honest company like Microsoft (those who corrupted the head of ISO to get a 3000 page "specification" labeled as open standard, to name one) does the same publicity tricks that apple does (I am sure Apple has many more volunteers that make the tricks look like genuine events).
"Embrace linux" requires not much of an effort. That's why PC that were made before linux got popular happily run it. "Don't throttle linux" fits more the situation, IMHO.
I observe that we can build abstractions. E.g. a game of chess. Oh wait, this is the 21st century, a game of solitaire is ok? Position of cards, movements. Such an abstraction actually resides nowhere in our reality, our reality only hosts the means to describe it and the minds able to understand the meaning of the description. We're creators of that abstraction even if we're not their Gods.
As we can build abstractions, no doubt our reality can be an abstraction itself.
Doesn't seem rocket science to me and it's not apologetic, because it justifies the existence of fake religion as much as it justifies the possibility of a god.
Do you find it normal having to re-learn how to do stuff with your pc because the OS producer needs to make his products unique so you have more trouble using the alternatives? Every 3 years?
> But how can anything that Microsoft says about malware be trusted when Microsoft's own windows OS can be classified as spyware/rootkit approved by clicking through a multipage EULA?
All conspiracies are real for sure. Not all conspiracies THEORIES are real, for sure, and nobody is disputing that, so maybe you should get back to topic.
The complete abolition of patents is not a problem for the already powerful industries: they can reverse engineer and copy the small inventor before he can set up a supply chain for production of his items.
In a nutshell: stupid patents used to own markets through extensive portfolios is ideal, no patents is ok. A system of serious patents empowers the individual inventor/small lab, which would be good for society, but a constant in human history is: stronger groups taking away weaker groups' freedoms.
Some years ago, slashdot featured a guy building a HERF gun on his own. The link was quickly broken and those HERF gun plans are likely on the net somewhere, choked by the tons of fake articles about free energy and alternative science.
The answer is: yes, but you are not likely to ever hear about it, especially if it frees up the individual. This likely has been true since somebody figured out the eclipses.
Why you need usenet? Because it is better to focus on a tree of subjects instead of roaming a hundred forums with different logins about the same subjects.
Usenet needed improvement, not death. The big problems were efficient distribution of articles among servers, and moderation. Both solvable (i'd have left to server/discussion admins to kill articles based on readers feedback, and the option to accept the kill recommendations from other servers with some degrees of trust). It obviously was too free for the interests driving the development of the net, namely advertising, the telcos and media companies.
One group I used to follow was polluted by very persistent trolls without fantasy, the most prominent one was found to be linked to the telco running the server, YMMV.
If somebody thinks about reviving a low bandwidth web 1.0 instead of js sites on a handful of bloated browsers, please tell me where do I sign up.
Not only legacy- I had updated my aspire 5720's bios to suppress a bug which prevented 64bit linux using freedos because I had already got rid of the Vista installation (30 minutes after started using it, I think 8 will last less). Worked flawlessly but I acknowledge it's a risky procedure.
For the same hardware which has not been released, I dunno:) You should head to phoronix which has comparisons between open and closed drivers. In my experience, with an obsolete hd2400 that I run with debian wheezy and the experimental fglrx-legacy driver, gamers should opt for the closed source one, while desktop effects, simpler games etc are handled perfectly by the open source drivers. Both closed and open drivers seem not to have problems with kernel updates thanks to dkms, and are stable. Of course free software is easier to deploy-distribute-use in business.
The first phrase is the definition of fascism. I do not mean of course the Hitler and Mussolini regimes, I mean the concept of citizen reduced to components of the State.
Private property exists before governments do, so it is not a monopoly granted by the government. Government themselves, with the systems of laws came after some people acquired power and need to legitimize it. That's why even in democratic countries it it so difficult for the will of the majority to end up in structural changes.
I guess it is too late for boycotts to have an effect. Money is a weapon that travels at the speed of light and it is untraceable. (Yes YOUR money is well traceable, but who owns corporations? banks. Who own banks? who knows?)
But I do boycott myself. Because it's a moral choice. The effect is irrelevant.
but why should any buyer not have the COMPLETE price list for the item he's gonna buy? S
camera A: price 200â. Price of all spare parts combined:600â. Price for workmanship of repair of all parts: 500â. Availability of spare parts: 5yrs. Nearest repair point: 500km. ONLY IN-HOUSE REPAIR
camera B: price 250â Price of all spare parts combined: 400â... availability of spare parts: 15yrs. Neares repair point: 29km. Third parties allowed to repair.
That reminds me TR 010 NE and TR 010 NA are valid, not personalized, plates here in Italy. DR 000 GA is quite evocative too, and should have been already issued by now.
(If you dunno what "troiona/e" mean, ask your mom;) ).
As just replied to the same argument then "it would be easy to make linux fully support modern macs. All the advantages of x86 and all the advantages of less hardware interactions to worry about." Is this the case? (I have no intel macs around)
And, whatever the answer, still your objection doesn't make much sense, because the problems with linux is not "i cannot make this configuration work because this piece of hardware is not known/ not supported", but "as time goes by it is increasingly difficult to make hardware work because of new, underdocumented, protocols and functionalities that nobody really asked for". Go read up in forums what people are doing to have secure boot laptops boot linux, they are trying keypresses out because there is NO OFFICIAL DOCS ON HOW TO GET TO THE FRIGGIN BIOS SCREEN. Go read up what Gates says about ACPI in the halloween documents. Does it fit, now? Of course I will concede that hardware configs are a problem with x86: a COMMERCIAL problem, because laptop model Foobar/x123-4567890abc has an undefined default config: does it mount an atheros or an intel wireless? who knows! Sometimes you don't even have the same LCD resolution!
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Do the thing smart appliances do:
In soviet russia iWatch watches YOU!
Ditto elsewhere.
> I'm sure lots of people would be interested in your, um, various parts. ;-)
And that's why the icelandic approach is not ideal.
You want to harm pornography? make its copyright unenforceable, and prevent selling it in your country.
If there is less money in making it, I guess there will be less people doing it.
If OTOH pornography is something more than a way of making money, but a way to shape society, this too would fail.
If you see the effects of pornography it's nothing like what they told us in the 70s. According to such propaganda we now should be enlightened and relaxed in our ways to deal with the other sex. No way. No fucking way, I'd rather say.
That's Impossible! you see, molecules are brainless items while metal heads are... uhm... nevermind.
Personally I never got to make that choice. Repairability is not mentioned in the ads.
In fact, since it can be defined as "the abstraction of online activities", it exist as such. Argue that and I'll argue you are a not a person, you are a bunch of cells.
The article which I won't bother reading makes a mistake: the cyberspace can sure be a concept. Those trying to map real world concept to cyberspace fail, they do it mostly on purpose to enforce censorship. That has nothing to do with the validity of cyberspace per se.
In other news, the police arrested and raided the home of a certain Jeremiah Bornelius, terrorist.
You must be quite a paranoid guy if you think that a honest company like Microsoft (those who corrupted the head of ISO to get a 3000 page "specification" labeled as open standard, to name one) does the same publicity tricks that apple does (I am sure Apple has many more volunteers that make the tricks look like genuine events).
"Embrace linux" requires not much of an effort. That's why PC that were made before linux got popular happily run it.
"Don't throttle linux" fits more the situation, IMHO.
I observe that we can build abstractions.
E.g. a game of chess. Oh wait, this is the 21st century, a game of solitaire is ok? Position of cards, movements. Such an abstraction actually resides nowhere in our reality, our reality only hosts the means to describe it and the minds able to understand the meaning of the description. We're creators of that abstraction even if we're not their Gods.
As we can build abstractions, no doubt our reality can be an abstraction itself.
Doesn't seem rocket science to me and it's not apologetic, because it justifies the existence of fake religion as much as it justifies the possibility of a god.
Do you find it normal having to re-learn how to do stuff with your pc because the OS producer needs to make his products unique so you have more trouble using the alternatives? Every 3 years?
> But how can anything that Microsoft says about malware be trusted when Microsoft's own windows OS can be classified as spyware/rootkit approved by clicking through a multipage EULA?
FTFY
Sorry, sarcasm detector is automatically disabled for 7 digit UIDs, because you might actually be convinced of all the stuff you write.
All conspiracies are real for sure.
Not all conspiracies THEORIES are real, for sure, and nobody is disputing that, so maybe you should get back to topic.
The complete abolition of patents is not a problem for the already powerful industries: they can reverse engineer and copy the small inventor before he can set up a supply chain for production of his items.
In a nutshell: stupid patents used to own markets through extensive portfolios is ideal, no patents is ok. A system of serious patents empowers the individual inventor/small lab, which would be good for society, but a constant in human history is: stronger groups taking away weaker groups' freedoms.
Some years ago, slashdot featured a guy building a HERF gun on his own. The link was quickly broken and those HERF gun plans are likely on the net somewhere, choked by the tons of fake articles about free energy and alternative science.
The answer is: yes, but you are not likely to ever hear about it, especially if it frees up the individual. This likely has been true since somebody figured out the eclipses.
Why you need usenet?
Because it is better to focus on a tree of subjects instead of roaming a hundred forums with different logins about the same subjects.
Usenet needed improvement, not death. The big problems were efficient distribution of articles among servers, and moderation. Both solvable (i'd have left to server/discussion admins to kill articles based on readers feedback, and the option to accept the kill recommendations from other servers with some degrees of trust). It obviously was too free for the interests driving the development of the net, namely advertising, the telcos and media companies.
One group I used to follow was polluted by very persistent trolls without fantasy, the most prominent one was found to be linked to the telco running the server, YMMV.
If somebody thinks about reviving a low bandwidth web 1.0 instead of js sites on a handful of bloated browsers, please tell me where do I sign up.
admittedly, he said "trying"...
Not only legacy- I had updated my aspire 5720's bios to suppress a bug which prevented 64bit linux using freedos because I had already got rid of the Vista installation (30 minutes after started using it, I think 8 will last less). Worked flawlessly but I acknowledge it's a risky procedure.
For the same hardware which has not been released, I dunno :)
You should head to phoronix which has comparisons between open and closed drivers.
In my experience, with an obsolete hd2400 that I run with debian wheezy and the experimental fglrx-legacy driver, gamers should opt for the closed source one, while desktop effects, simpler games etc are handled perfectly by the open source drivers. Both closed and open drivers seem not to have problems with kernel updates thanks to dkms, and are stable. Of course free software is easier to deploy-distribute-use in business.
The first phrase is the definition of fascism. I do not mean of course the Hitler and Mussolini regimes, I mean the concept of citizen reduced to components of the State.
Private property exists before governments do, so it is not a monopoly granted by the government.
Government themselves, with the systems of laws came after some people acquired power and need to legitimize it. That's why even in democratic countries it it so difficult for the will of the majority to end up in structural changes.
I guess it is too late for boycotts to have an effect. Money is a weapon that travels at the speed of light and it is untraceable. (Yes YOUR money is well traceable, but who owns corporations? banks. Who own banks? who knows?)
But I do boycott myself. Because it's a moral choice. The effect is irrelevant.
but why should any buyer not have the COMPLETE price list for the item he's gonna buy? S
camera A: price 200â. Price of all spare parts combined:600â. Price for workmanship of repair of all parts: 500â. Availability of spare parts: 5yrs. Nearest repair point: 500km. ONLY IN-HOUSE REPAIR
camera B: price 250â Price of all spare parts combined: 400â... availability of spare parts: 15yrs. Neares repair point: 29km. Third parties allowed to repair.
Now, pick.
Realism? You mean like, one shot whose blast gets to your ear after you get hit, and game over forever? Nah, let's stick to photorealism :)
That reminds me TR 010 NE and TR 010 NA are valid, not personalized, plates here in Italy. DR 000 GA is quite evocative too, and should have been already issued by now.
(If you dunno what "troiona/e" mean, ask your mom ;) ).
As just replied to the same argument then "it would be easy to make linux fully support modern macs. All the advantages of x86 and all the advantages of less hardware interactions to worry about."
Is this the case? (I have no intel macs around)
And, whatever the answer, still your objection doesn't make much sense, because the problems with linux is not "i cannot make this configuration work because this piece of hardware is not known/ not supported", but "as time goes by it is increasingly difficult to make hardware work because of new, underdocumented, protocols and functionalities that nobody really asked for". Go read up in forums what people are doing to have secure boot laptops boot linux, they are trying keypresses out because there is NO OFFICIAL DOCS ON HOW TO GET TO THE FRIGGIN BIOS SCREEN. Go read up what Gates says about ACPI in the halloween documents. Does it fit, now?
Of course I will concede that hardware configs are a problem with x86: a COMMERCIAL problem, because laptop model Foobar/x123-4567890abc has an undefined default config: does it mount an atheros or an intel wireless? who knows! Sometimes you don't even have the same LCD resolution!