Essentially, you're saying that if the Internet can do something, but your ISP would make more money if you were doing it a different way, it has the right to keep you from doing it over the Internet.
Let me think. Hmmm... Yes! Gee that question was easy!
I realize it's fashionable nowadays to pretend if it weren't for the benevolence of an omnipotent government we would all be miserable choice-less slaves of corporatism, but it's simply is not true. You do have a choice. If you don't like your ISP, get another one! How hard can it be?
Let's take a different service and see if you statement still makes sense. What about roads (you know, the whole info superhighway analogy thingy). You're saying that if you possess the technical ability to do something on the road, you're insurance company doesn't have the right to prevent you? Bullshit! If you don't like your insurance company telling you how to drive, find another company! Duh!
p.s. Yes, I realize that some poor schmuck living in Waxhole Tennessee might only have one tiny dialup ISP in their neck of the woods, but somehow it's always those in universities with several dozen ISP options that complain about this.
They're not regulating what the candidate says. They're just regulating how much money he can spend.
In the grand scheme of things, there is no difference. Ever hear the phrase "put your money where your mouth is?" There is a growing movement out there that is deliberately trying to limit free speech through the tactics of limiting free spending.
It costs money to run a political ad. Limit spending and you thus limit speech. It costs money for television inches and newspaper inches. It costs money for the microphone and it costs money for the electicity to power it. Hell, it even costs money to buy the soapbox to stand on! Limit spending and you limit speech.
There are many good and honorable reforms that can be made to the campaign process, but limiting a candidates ability to spend/speak is not one of them. Forbid a union or corporation from contributing, because they're not human beings and don't have the right of free speech. But don't limit what I myself can contribute, because I myself *DO* have the right of free speech. If I want to contribute a $10K local television spot, or a $5 blog entry (or whatever the FEC deems it's worth), to the candidate of my choice, it's none of your freaking business.
Light off fireworks in Canada where it is legal, come back, face charges if they capriciously decide.
Bad example. Fireworks are legal in many US jurisdictions, and where they are banned, they are banned by *location* not by citizenship. So there is nothing illegal at all for a resident of Bumpacker County, where fireworks are illegal, to set off some fireworks in neighboring Pudpounder County, where they are legal.
A better example is "honor" killings. If you're really into the "Amerika is Evil" game, then what about honor killings? It's illegal to murder a flirtatious daughter or unfaithful wife in the US, but it's perfectly legal (and encouraged) in many middle eastern nations. So should it be okay for an American to kill his unfaithful wife abroad, and then return home to no consequences? After all, our laws should not apply on THEIR soil!
An unfair example you say? Then what about campaign contributions? If you happen to believe in campaign contribution limits (if you don't, just pretend you do for the sake of the example), then would it be okay to greatly exceed the limit merely be giving it to the candidate's agent while the both of you were sitting in a bar in Toronto? Why should US election laws apply to what you do in Canada?
The Democrat candiate lost the last presidential election, so all of his supporters are excusing their poor choice of candidate by pointing to a mythical decline in democracy as the reason.
From the definition of environmentalism you would be an advocate of stopping pollution or the destruction of the natural environment. If you are not an "environmentalist" then you do not advocate these beliefs. That's how the word works.
That may be how the word works in an Orwellian newspeak sense, but that's not what it means. Environmentalism (note the -ism suffix) is a set of specific political solutions to environmental problems, and if you don't agree with the those solutions (at least to some degree) you can't be an environmentalist.
"Environmentalism" is a word that has expanded to fill spaces it should not. I am not an environmentalist. To most people today, that means I want to destroy the earth, that I want to shit in their water supply, and want to use plutonium as a food perservative. It doesn't matter if I tell them that I'm a conservationist, because they won't understand.
And what the hell does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?
Solaris makes a great workstation... but only if administered by a competent sysadmin. It was never meant to be a "download off the net and install onto random laptop" type of operating system. If you want that then stick with Linux or BSD.
p.s. While the manual install process is very fragile, the remote/automatic install process is extremely powerful and no Free operating system comes anywhere close.
And hats! Don't forget hats! In the 1930's everyone wore hats. But they went out of style. When my dad got a melonoma on his balding head, he was told by the doctor to wear a hat!
Actually, it's the anti-environmental lobby that latches onto the natural cycles argument, using it as an excuse to do nothing.
They're not using it an excuse to do nothing, intead they are using it as an excuse not to crawl back into the cro magnon cave the crawled out of! Environmentalists are against technological progress. When Al Gore advocated banning the internal combustion engine he was proposing just that. Gasoline engines may not be perfect, but until we have viable replacements for them, banning them is not an intelligent solution.
There is not "anti-environmental" lobby, but there certainly is an "anti-environmentalist" lobby. Like it or not, environmentalism is a specific political ideology. Not everyone who wants to protect the environment is an environmentalist. Not everyone who wants to eliminate pollution is an environmentalist. Pretending that wanting to clean up the Earth is environmentalism is as silly as pretending that wanting to eliminate poverty is socialism.
There is this myth out there that patents encourage innovation. In some ways it is true, but only for the old style of patents. It used to be a requirement that patents be for novel inventions that are not obvious to practitioners in the field. But now days that definition has been watered down to the near meaningless "no one has filed it before".
Personally, I don't have any problems with "software" patents, provided that they are truly novel inventions, and truly not obvious to practitioners in the field. But the number of software patents that fit this bill are extremely few. To be fair though (and to prevent my being burned at the stake for Free Software heresy), I also want lots of reforms to the patent system. First I want the terms of patents significantly reduced. Second, it should be up to the patent holder to demonstrate violation, and not up the defendent to prove innocent.
The last automobile I had came with this truly incredible and innovative UI. Instead of the depressingly boring copies of Henry Ford's steering week and brake/accelerator pedals, you sat in harness and controlled the vehicle by leaning left or right. Pushing forward hard on the dash (a very intuitive action) caused braking.
I really can't understand why nobody else likes this radical new automobile UI. I'm waiting for mine to get back from the repair shop so I can try getting it further down the street this time.
The answer is simple: The unbridled hunger for the corrupting influence that is Brussels. He might not have as much direct power as he had in Algarve, but nobody beats Brussels when it comes to festering corruption.
Good point. But I don't know if it really applies in this case. From my reading it sounds more like corporate bureaucratic molasses than official secrecy. Did John ask the *government* for the applicable law, or is he still pestering ticket agents?
Do you want to get rid of the plethora of configuration options? THEN STOP REQUESTING THEM! The fact is that users want them. I know they want them because they keep requesting more and more of them.
Go peruse kde-look.org and see all the requests (and mockups) for additional features. Themes have even been forked to add options. There's one theme that has FIVE PAGES of options, and it's a POPULAR theme! Then go look at the bug lists for KDE. A high percentage of feature requests are for additional options.
Now on to your specific item. That's in the Performance tab. It's the equivalent of an advanced set of options. Users who fear options will never see it because they will never get that far. If this item really does make a significant tradeoff between performance and functionality (I have no idea if it does), then it deserves an option somewhere.
I really don't understand those who think that the entire configuration UI should consist of a single button labelled "Do It". There's a new kind of popup window annoying people on the net. It doesn't bother me because I can block it with Konqueror or Mozilla. But there's no way to block it with Firefox. We have to wait for someone to write a Forefox extension for it. Now tell me what's harder, clicking an option in Konqueror, or finding the right extension for Firefox then installing it?
Holy fsck, that's the answer everyone gives! Am I the only one here older than 30? If there are any old farts out there cheering John on for this fight against an inane bureacracy, please tell me why you were silent on this issue from 1992 to 2000...
Slashdot Mirror
The free market isn't free, in any sense. To believe otherwise is to turn economics into religion...
Pervasive government regulation is not freedom. To believe otherwise is to turn statism into religion. Oh wait, it is...
Essentially, you're saying that if the Internet can do something, but your ISP would make more money if you were doing it a different way, it has the right to keep you from doing it over the Internet.
Let me think. Hmmm... Yes! Gee that question was easy!
I realize it's fashionable nowadays to pretend if it weren't for the benevolence of an omnipotent government we would all be miserable choice-less slaves of corporatism, but it's simply is not true. You do have a choice. If you don't like your ISP, get another one! How hard can it be?
Let's take a different service and see if you statement still makes sense. What about roads (you know, the whole info superhighway analogy thingy). You're saying that if you possess the technical ability to do something on the road, you're insurance company doesn't have the right to prevent you? Bullshit! If you don't like your insurance company telling you how to drive, find another company! Duh!
p.s. Yes, I realize that some poor schmuck living in Waxhole Tennessee might only have one tiny dialup ISP in their neck of the woods, but somehow it's always those in universities with several dozen ISP options that complain about this.
Only if she happens to be a Ward Churchill bashing blogger.
They're not regulating what the candidate says. They're just regulating how much money he can spend.
In the grand scheme of things, there is no difference. Ever hear the phrase "put your money where your mouth is?" There is a growing movement out there that is deliberately trying to limit free speech through the tactics of limiting free spending.
It costs money to run a political ad. Limit spending and you thus limit speech. It costs money for television inches and newspaper inches. It costs money for the microphone and it costs money for the electicity to power it. Hell, it even costs money to buy the soapbox to stand on! Limit spending and you limit speech.
There are many good and honorable reforms that can be made to the campaign process, but limiting a candidates ability to spend/speak is not one of them. Forbid a union or corporation from contributing, because they're not human beings and don't have the right of free speech. But don't limit what I myself can contribute, because I myself *DO* have the right of free speech. If I want to contribute a $10K local television spot, or a $5 blog entry (or whatever the FEC deems it's worth), to the candidate of my choice, it's none of your freaking business.
Light off fireworks in Canada where it is legal, come back, face charges if they capriciously decide.
Bad example. Fireworks are legal in many US jurisdictions, and where they are banned, they are banned by *location* not by citizenship. So there is nothing illegal at all for a resident of Bumpacker County, where fireworks are illegal, to set off some fireworks in neighboring Pudpounder County, where they are legal.
A better example is "honor" killings. If you're really into the "Amerika is Evil" game, then what about honor killings? It's illegal to murder a flirtatious daughter or unfaithful wife in the US, but it's perfectly legal (and encouraged) in many middle eastern nations. So should it be okay for an American to kill his unfaithful wife abroad, and then return home to no consequences? After all, our laws should not apply on THEIR soil!
An unfair example you say? Then what about campaign contributions? If you happen to believe in campaign contribution limits (if you don't, just pretend you do for the sake of the example), then would it be okay to greatly exceed the limit merely be giving it to the candidate's agent while the both of you were sitting in a bar in Toronto? Why should US election laws apply to what you do in Canada?
The Democrat candiate lost the last presidential election, so all of his supporters are excusing their poor choice of candidate by pointing to a mythical decline in democracy as the reason.
From the definition of environmentalism you would be an advocate of stopping pollution or the destruction of the natural environment. If you are not an "environmentalist" then you do not advocate these beliefs. That's how the word works.
That may be how the word works in an Orwellian newspeak sense, but that's not what it means. Environmentalism (note the -ism suffix) is a set of specific political solutions to environmental problems, and if you don't agree with the those solutions (at least to some degree) you can't be an environmentalist.
"Environmentalism" is a word that has expanded to fill spaces it should not. I am not an environmentalist. To most people today, that means I want to destroy the earth, that I want to shit in their water supply, and want to use plutonium as a food perservative. It doesn't matter if I tell them that I'm a conservationist, because they won't understand.
And what the hell does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?
For unattended installs, this is a requirement. Solaris can do this, but not the way he was doing it.
At home I run Linux because a couple of emulators (hercules and qemu) are only available on Linux...
Actually, both hercules and qemu are available on FreeBSD, and probably the other BSDs as well.
Solaris makes a great workstation... but only if administered by a competent sysadmin. It was never meant to be a "download off the net and install onto random laptop" type of operating system. If you want that then stick with Linux or BSD.
p.s. While the manual install process is very fragile, the remote/automatic install process is extremely powerful and no Free operating system comes anywhere close.
So why is it happening now?
Because it's always been happening?
And hats! Don't forget hats! In the 1930's everyone wore hats. But they went out of style. When my dad got a melonoma on his balding head, he was told by the doctor to wear a hat!
Actually, it's the anti-environmental lobby that latches onto the natural cycles argument, using it as an excuse to do nothing.
They're not using it an excuse to do nothing, intead they are using it as an excuse not to crawl back into the cro magnon cave the crawled out of! Environmentalists are against technological progress. When Al Gore advocated banning the internal combustion engine he was proposing just that. Gasoline engines may not be perfect, but until we have viable replacements for them, banning them is not an intelligent solution.
There is not "anti-environmental" lobby, but there certainly is an "anti-environmentalist" lobby. Like it or not, environmentalism is a specific political ideology. Not everyone who wants to protect the environment is an environmentalist. Not everyone who wants to eliminate pollution is an environmentalist. Pretending that wanting to clean up the Earth is environmentalism is as silly as pretending that wanting to eliminate poverty is socialism.
it's because it is currently being stalked by a hungry pride of lions who want to gaurantee they capture their prey
Nah, they hungry lions are waiting for the money to show up. There's no point in suing Free Beer...
There is this myth out there that patents encourage innovation. In some ways it is true, but only for the old style of patents. It used to be a requirement that patents be for novel inventions that are not obvious to practitioners in the field. But now days that definition has been watered down to the near meaningless "no one has filed it before".
Personally, I don't have any problems with "software" patents, provided that they are truly novel inventions, and truly not obvious to practitioners in the field. But the number of software patents that fit this bill are extremely few. To be fair though (and to prevent my being burned at the stake for Free Software heresy), I also want lots of reforms to the patent system. First I want the terms of patents significantly reduced. Second, it should be up to the patent holder to demonstrate violation, and not up the defendent to prove innocent.
The ONLY reason UNIX is mentioned in the title, is because before 4.4BSD Lite, BSD still contained AT&T UNIX code, and so it was still UNIX.
Six! Six freaking files!
Do we also call SysV by the name of "BSD" since it backported a heck of a lot more files than that from BSD?
Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research?
The last automobile I had came with this truly incredible and innovative UI. Instead of the depressingly boring copies of Henry Ford's steering week and brake/accelerator pedals, you sat in harness and controlled the vehicle by leaning left or right. Pushing forward hard on the dash (a very intuitive action) caused braking.
I really can't understand why nobody else likes this radical new automobile UI. I'm waiting for mine to get back from the repair shop so I can try getting it further down the street this time.
This is our spokesman? Get him the fsck out of there!
Free Software will never be ready for prime time until we learn to muzzle our wackos.
The answer is simple: The unbridled hunger for the corrupting influence that is Brussels. He might not have as much direct power as he had in Algarve, but nobody beats Brussels when it comes to festering corruption.
Good point. But I don't know if it really applies in this case. From my reading it sounds more like corporate bureaucratic molasses than official secrecy. Did John ask the *government* for the applicable law, or is he still pestering ticket agents?
Do you want to get rid of the plethora of configuration options? THEN STOP REQUESTING THEM! The fact is that users want them. I know they want them because they keep requesting more and more of them.
Go peruse kde-look.org and see all the requests (and mockups) for additional features. Themes have even been forked to add options. There's one theme that has FIVE PAGES of options, and it's a POPULAR theme! Then go look at the bug lists for KDE. A high percentage of feature requests are for additional options.
Now on to your specific item. That's in the Performance tab. It's the equivalent of an advanced set of options. Users who fear options will never see it because they will never get that far. If this item really does make a significant tradeoff between performance and functionality (I have no idea if it does), then it deserves an option somewhere.
I really don't understand those who think that the entire configuration UI should consist of a single button labelled "Do It". There's a new kind of popup window annoying people on the net. It doesn't bother me because I can block it with Konqueror or Mozilla. But there's no way to block it with Firefox. We have to wait for someone to write a Forefox extension for it. Now tell me what's harder, clicking an option in Konqueror, or finding the right extension for Firefox then installing it?
This is a guy who tells you he is not a usability expert, so why are you treating him as one? Opinions are like assholes, and his stinks too!
How long until the Linux kernel starts complaining about a "tainted" BIOS.
Alan: "Determined that user running manufacturer's BIOS, user's bug report closed and rejected with prejudice."
High school
Holy fsck, that's the answer everyone gives! Am I the only one here older than 30? If there are any old farts out there cheering John on for this fight against an inane bureacracy, please tell me why you were silent on this issue from 1992 to 2000...