What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?
False assumption. The common person has NEVER been heard. It is only now, with the internet and cheap hosting, that the common person can start to make himself heard.
p.s. But if the common person keeps making death threats, he's going to quickly lose that new ability to be heard.
I do take an effort to find out about the charities I give to. But even if they aren't 100% perfectly efficient, they're still a damned site better than foreign aid.
Don't act like your taxes are some sort of carbon offset that absolves you from helping others. Don't act like voting for the politically correct candidate is a substitute for charity.
Pretty much all the businesses in the USA are big box chains.
Where the fsck do you live? Get out of the big-box-anchor malls, and out into the real America!
I live in the Bay Area Sprawl, yet within two miles of me are numerous small independent non-chain stores in a huge variety of market segments. Vacumns, luggage, books, computers, groceries, video rentals, furniture, hardware, etc.
This gets interesting reactions from people who identify as "libertarian capitalists".
I'm a libertarian capitalist, and I fully agree with you. I suspect most other libertarian capitalists would as well, if they ever stopped to consider it.
However, the reality of today is that many businesses must incorporate in order to compete in the market. In our zeal for "social justice", let's make sure we attack the laws of incorporation, and not businesses themselves.
Then one manufacturer comes along who doesn't and starts vacumning up marketshare.
Seriously. Stop imagining conspiracies of collusion between cutthroat competitors. For example, suppliers today *could* collude to aggressively collect on unpaid accounts, and put the screws to mom-and-pops. But they don't, because it would drive business into the arms of suppliers who don't. If SCOTUS rules in favor of this silly idea, it would be no different. A few wholesalers may decide to act like imperious assholes, but they'll end up like SCO wondering what happened to their revenue stream.
Economics in half a lesson: A mountain of diamonds won't feed an undernourished child, nor will it teach an undereducated child. But then again, neither will your whining. If you want to feed and teach children in Africa, stop worrying about what other people do with their own money, and start sending them yours.
Have *you* done anything to directly help undernourished, undereducated children in Africa? I'm not talking about voting for hypersensitive politicians with overactive tearducts, I'm talking about actually sending your own money to where it can be directly used to nourish and educate. Have you "adopted" a needy African child? Have you given to a charity that sends food and books? Have you ever dropped a quarter into a World Vision collection box?
So you do admit you've never seen one. Here is what they look like: They're a small one inch diameter circle of rolled latex, vaguely resembling an oversized Werther's candy. It is the "one inch diameter" part which I consider to be "quite small".
The problem with the left is that they believe in Rousseau's Social Contract. Here's a big cluestick: There is no social contract! Government is populated by tyrants. It always has been, and it always will be. Everyone who wields political power to force someone to act against his will is a tyrant. But tyrants don't obey contracts, not even social contracts. Therefore you must keep government on a very short leash, and only give it the bare minimum power necessary for it to do its job.
This was an advisory refendum only. It was symbology. Absolutely no substance. It's the equivalent of telling a rapist "please be gentle".
I am all in favor of full narcotics legalization. But I am not so stupid to think that some idiotic feel-good "advisory" referendum would change anything. You might as well be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya. If you want to change things in Montana, you need to start with referendums that have teeth in them. Then start voting out the bastards.
I am amazed that they actually had videos usable in open source players. It seems like everyone else in the Linux world has jumped on the proprietary Flash bandwagon.
I know some google engineers, and they are expected to work very long hours. There's nothing in writing that says you have to be there all day, but the pressure is there. Sure the rules say you only have to work eight hours and wear thirteen pieces of flair, but if you want to be a true Googlan you should voluntarily work until the last shuttle to Caltrain leaves, and voluntarily wear as many pieces of flair that will fit on your ultrawide suspenders.
Another "incentive" is even more subtle. You're told all day long by Slashdot and the tech media that you are a genius. You have to be a genius otherwise Google would never hire you. But you're not a genius, you're just the average software developer. So you have to prove to your boss that you're a genius. What you lack in the way of perceived intelligence you make up for through longer hours.
Because Google is concerned for your well being and health, you won't die of a heart attack by age thirty. But you will be single by age thirty (either divorced or never married).
You can write the GTK "hello world" program in a combination of C and assembly fairly easily.
Although frankly, by the time you reach the GUI, you should have stepped up to a higher level language. As long as you're going to abstract the user interface graphically, you might as well be abstracting the code you write.
What you are doing is taking things to an absurd extreme. But ANYTHING can be taken to an absurd extreme. Do you want to take pro-choice arguments to an extreme? If the government cannot say anything at all about what a person can or cannot do with their body, then you are arguing for outright anarchy. For example. rape is caused by a man's body, so you must be arguing in favor of rape.
Of course my argument is absurd. But so is yours! One must stay away from the extremes and within the realm of rationality. There are several logical starting points for personhood. One is the act of birth. Another is the act of conception. Both are valid events to consider. The vast majority of people agree that these are the boundaries, because you will find extremely few who will argue that life begins at pre-conception meiosis, and extremely few on the other side who argue that it's okay to abort post-birth infants and toddlers.
If you want any hope at all of convincing someone to your side, then stay away from the absurd extremes. Unless, of course, you're just a pepperpot hoping to score Slashdot argument points.
There was no human being before conception, only a sperm and an egg, neither of which qualify as being members of homo sapiens. Duh.
But let me turn the tables around, since you seem to love such pointless word games: what species was the fetus the day before it was born? I am interested in knowing what species fetuses are before they emerge from the womb.
How on earth can you kill someone who hasn't even been born yet?
Your question is full of assumptions, not all of which are warranted. An unborn human being is still a human being, still a member of the species homo sapiens. Biologically, they join the human race at conception. Whether or not they are legal "persons" entitled to government protection is a completely separate issue.
Next you'll be saying woman who have periods are murderers....that's another embryo aborted.
Menstruation does not kill an embryo, which is what you seem to be implying. If you want a better example, may I suggest "miscarriage"? Now to answer your amended question, as why we don't call women who have miscarriages murderers, is because those events are unintented, unwillful and accidental. The technical term for an intended miscarriage is "abortion".
How typical. Someone disagrees with you, and so you call them names. It's like your beliefs are so fragile they can't exist in a world where someone else might doubt them.
If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers.
Precisely. The GNU community has been so blinded by their ideology (politics) that they seem unable to grasp the reality of the world around them.
What did Novell do wrong? They got a promise from Micrsoft not to sue. That's it. Nothing else changed, nothing at all. No new restrictions, no new conditions, not even new dots over the I's. While this moves says a lot of bad things about *Microsoft*, it actually says something good about Novell: they're interested in protecting their customers from specious lawsuits. If the FSF's argument is that a promise by a third party not to sue would be a violation of the GPLv3, then the fate of any GPLv3 project is in Microsoft's hands!
Frankly, the only reason I'm not worried about that happening, is that such a clause would not be legal. This is all bluster by the FSF meant to intimidate.
No, "hypocrits". Frankly, I could care less if they use proprietary software. That's what choice is all about. But the typical Linux user preaches radical Stallmanism *AND* demands proprietary video drivers. That's hypocrisy.
Because these costs are overwhelmingly based on energy and materials. And while you can always used recycled materials, oftentimes the energy cost is even more to recycle than to use virgin materials. Thus, if you're buying a Prius because you think it uses less energy than a Hummer, think again.
p.s. Of course, that's no reason to buy a Hummer. But it may be a reason to buy a non-hyrid Corolla instead of a Prius.
* People who will trade their Free Software principles for proprietary ATI and NVidia drivers * People who will trade in their anti-monopolist principles for proprietary Flash plugins
Actually, I would think the last thing you need would be to have a dearth of popular software for your platform.
Actually what we want is true crossplatform software. If I have to quintuple boot, just to get the right mix and match of software to proprietary backends, I might as well just stick with Windows.
p.s. This is why some Linux users really piss me off. They say they are for Free Software, insist that you prefix "Linux" with "GNU", scream bloody murder about Novell deals with Microsoft... yet if you wave a piece of of proprietary lockin over them, like Flash, and they start salivating like a pavlovian dog. All that slober is disgusting.
Slashdot Mirror
Markets aren't perfect at all, that's why they're regulated in the first place ...
You're saying the regulations and the politicians and bureaucrats who write them are perfect? Give me a freaking break!
What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?
False assumption. The common person has NEVER been heard. It is only now, with the internet and cheap hosting, that the common person can start to make himself heard.
p.s. But if the common person keeps making death threats, he's going to quickly lose that new ability to be heard.
I do take an effort to find out about the charities I give to. But even if they aren't 100% perfectly efficient, they're still a damned site better than foreign aid.
Don't act like your taxes are some sort of carbon offset that absolves you from helping others. Don't act like voting for the politically correct candidate is a substitute for charity.
Pretty much all the businesses in the USA are big box chains.
Where the fsck do you live? Get out of the big-box-anchor malls, and out into the real America!
I live in the Bay Area Sprawl, yet within two miles of me are numerous small independent non-chain stores in a huge variety of market segments. Vacumns, luggage, books, computers, groceries, video rentals, furniture, hardware, etc.
This gets interesting reactions from people who identify as "libertarian capitalists".
I'm a libertarian capitalist, and I fully agree with you. I suspect most other libertarian capitalists would as well, if they ever stopped to consider it.
However, the reality of today is that many businesses must incorporate in order to compete in the market. In our zeal for "social justice", let's make sure we attack the laws of incorporation, and not businesses themselves.
Then one manufacturer comes along who doesn't and starts vacumning up marketshare.
Seriously. Stop imagining conspiracies of collusion between cutthroat competitors. For example, suppliers today *could* collude to aggressively collect on unpaid accounts, and put the screws to mom-and-pops. But they don't, because it would drive business into the arms of suppliers who don't. If SCOTUS rules in favor of this silly idea, it would be no different. A few wholesalers may decide to act like imperious assholes, but they'll end up like SCO wondering what happened to their revenue stream.
I tried some ants-scale prophylactics, but the ants are still breeding like crazy. I'm going to try giving them ants-scale vasectomies next.
Economics in half a lesson: A mountain of diamonds won't feed an undernourished child, nor will it teach an undereducated child. But then again, neither will your whining. If you want to feed and teach children in Africa, stop worrying about what other people do with their own money, and start sending them yours.
Have *you* done anything to directly help undernourished, undereducated children in Africa? I'm not talking about voting for hypersensitive politicians with overactive tearducts, I'm talking about actually sending your own money to where it can be directly used to nourish and educate. Have you "adopted" a needy African child? Have you given to a charity that sends food and books? Have you ever dropped a quarter into a World Vision collection box?
Give, don't bitch.
So you do admit you've never seen one. Here is what they look like: They're a small one inch diameter circle of rolled latex, vaguely resembling an oversized Werther's candy. It is the "one inch diameter" part which I consider to be "quite small".
A prophylactic in its wrapper is quite small. If you've every used one, you would know...
The problem with the left is that they believe in Rousseau's Social Contract. Here's a big cluestick: There is no social contract! Government is populated by tyrants. It always has been, and it always will be. Everyone who wields political power to force someone to act against his will is a tyrant. But tyrants don't obey contracts, not even social contracts. Therefore you must keep government on a very short leash, and only give it the bare minimum power necessary for it to do its job.
This was an advisory refendum only. It was symbology. Absolutely no substance. It's the equivalent of telling a rapist "please be gentle".
I am all in favor of full narcotics legalization. But I am not so stupid to think that some idiotic feel-good "advisory" referendum would change anything. You might as well be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya. If you want to change things in Montana, you need to start with referendums that have teeth in them. Then start voting out the bastards.
I am amazed that they actually had videos usable in open source players. It seems like everyone else in the Linux world has jumped on the proprietary Flash bandwagon.
I know some google engineers, and they are expected to work very long hours. There's nothing in writing that says you have to be there all day, but the pressure is there. Sure the rules say you only have to work eight hours and wear thirteen pieces of flair, but if you want to be a true Googlan you should voluntarily work until the last shuttle to Caltrain leaves, and voluntarily wear as many pieces of flair that will fit on your ultrawide suspenders.
Another "incentive" is even more subtle. You're told all day long by Slashdot and the tech media that you are a genius. You have to be a genius otherwise Google would never hire you. But you're not a genius, you're just the average software developer. So you have to prove to your boss that you're a genius. What you lack in the way of perceived intelligence you make up for through longer hours.
Because Google is concerned for your well being and health, you won't die of a heart attack by age thirty. But you will be single by age thirty (either divorced or never married).
You can write the GTK "hello world" program in a combination of C and assembly fairly easily.
Although frankly, by the time you reach the GUI, you should have stepped up to a higher level language. As long as you're going to abstract the user interface graphically, you might as well be abstracting the code you write.
What you are doing is taking things to an absurd extreme. But ANYTHING can be taken to an absurd extreme. Do you want to take pro-choice arguments to an extreme? If the government cannot say anything at all about what a person can or cannot do with their body, then you are arguing for outright anarchy. For example. rape is caused by a man's body, so you must be arguing in favor of rape.
Of course my argument is absurd. But so is yours! One must stay away from the extremes and within the realm of rationality. There are several logical starting points for personhood. One is the act of birth. Another is the act of conception. Both are valid events to consider. The vast majority of people agree that these are the boundaries, because you will find extremely few who will argue that life begins at pre-conception meiosis, and extremely few on the other side who argue that it's okay to abort post-birth infants and toddlers.
If you want any hope at all of convincing someone to your side, then stay away from the absurd extremes. Unless, of course, you're just a pepperpot hoping to score Slashdot argument points.
There was no human being before conception, only a sperm and an egg, neither of which qualify as being members of homo sapiens. Duh.
But let me turn the tables around, since you seem to love such pointless word games: what species was the fetus the day before it was born? I am interested in knowing what species fetuses are before they emerge from the womb.
How on earth can you kill someone who hasn't even been born yet?
...that's another embryo aborted.
Your question is full of assumptions, not all of which are warranted. An unborn human being is still a human being, still a member of the species homo sapiens. Biologically, they join the human race at conception. Whether or not they are legal "persons" entitled to government protection is a completely separate issue.
Next you'll be saying woman who have periods are murderers.
Menstruation does not kill an embryo, which is what you seem to be implying. If you want a better example, may I suggest "miscarriage"? Now to answer your amended question, as why we don't call women who have miscarriages murderers, is because those events are unintented, unwillful and accidental. The technical term for an intended miscarriage is "abortion".
How typical. Someone disagrees with you, and so you call them names. It's like your beliefs are so fragile they can't exist in a world where someone else might doubt them.
If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers.
Precisely. The GNU community has been so blinded by their ideology (politics) that they seem unable to grasp the reality of the world around them.
What did Novell do wrong? They got a promise from Micrsoft not to sue. That's it. Nothing else changed, nothing at all. No new restrictions, no new conditions, not even new dots over the I's. While this moves says a lot of bad things about *Microsoft*, it actually says something good about Novell: they're interested in protecting their customers from specious lawsuits. If the FSF's argument is that a promise by a third party not to sue would be a violation of the GPLv3, then the fate of any GPLv3 project is in Microsoft's hands!
Frankly, the only reason I'm not worried about that happening, is that such a clause would not be legal. This is all bluster by the FSF meant to intimidate.
No, "hypocrits". Frankly, I could care less if they use proprietary software. That's what choice is all about. But the typical Linux user preaches radical Stallmanism *AND* demands proprietary video drivers. That's hypocrisy.
Because these costs are overwhelmingly based on energy and materials. And while you can always used recycled materials, oftentimes the energy cost is even more to recycle than to use virgin materials. Thus, if you're buying a Prius because you think it uses less energy than a Hummer, think again.
p.s. Of course, that's no reason to buy a Hummer. But it may be a reason to buy a non-hyrid Corolla instead of a Prius.
* People who will trade their Free Software principles for proprietary ATI and NVidia drivers
* People who will trade in their anti-monopolist principles for proprietary Flash plugins
This sure sounds like a possibility for Mozilla as it already has many of the applications needed
Except for a window manager, file manager, task manager, session manager...
Actually, I would think the last thing you need would be to have a dearth of popular software for your platform.
Actually what we want is true crossplatform software. If I have to quintuple boot, just to get the right mix and match of software to proprietary backends, I might as well just stick with Windows.
p.s. This is why some Linux users really piss me off. They say they are for Free Software, insist that you prefix "Linux" with "GNU", scream bloody murder about Novell deals with Microsoft... yet if you wave a piece of of proprietary lockin over them, like Flash, and they start salivating like a pavlovian dog. All that slober is disgusting.