I used homicide as a parallel for death due to war as a civilian casualty.
Why? Whatever makes you think they're equivalent? Homicide is a much narrower definition than that used by www.iraqbodycount.net, which counts all deaths indirectly related to the occupation.
But I'm always wary of claims that new weapons will reduce human misery.
If you remove the politics and emotionalism from the current Iraq occupation, it turns out that it has caused FAR LESS human misery than other similarly sized military actions. On both sides. Heck, it's statistically safer being an Iraqi civilian than a Washington DC resident.
New weapons that are designed to kill more people will of course increase human misery. But the current emphasis on military research is on weapons that are precise rather than indiscriminate.
The scores themselves are public knowledge. Compilations of the scores are not, and are copyrightable. In other words, if you attend the game and post the final score, you're fine, but if you cut-n-paste from ESPN, you're in violation of copyright.
(And yes I'm well aware that nothing is forcing us in the US to hand over our encryption yet but don't worry it'll probably happen sooner than you expect.)
It's a sad day when conspiracy theorists have to cite what-ifs as evidence.
What the fsck does Bush have to do with it? If you don't like Microsoft, don't use Microsoft's products. Simple. This applies not just to you as a person, but to the EU has an organization. Imagine if the EU and every government within it suddenly stopped using Microsoft products...
I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code.
No, the point of the GPL is to sue people you don't like. It's purpose is to be a big legal club you can bash people over the head wth. This may sound cynical, but if you reexamine the history of the GPL with this in mind, it will all suddenly start making sense.
It's not just distros, it's ANYONE who distributes the software. Including you! If you burn a copy of SimplyMepis for your friend, then you are obligated to *personally* make the sources available to him. Telling him to download the sources from Mepis just isn't good enough. Or at least that's the way today's interpretation of the GPL reads.
Abolishing copyright would result in GPL software being integrated into closed source binary products...
You GPL advocates drive me nuts! On one hand you say software should not be owned, and on the other you say we can't get rid of copyright. Make up your freaking minds.
Creating things is natural, copyright is not. The purpose of copyright is to create and enforce a monopoly via the government. Copyrights (and other forms of intellectual "property") are antithetical to the free market.
Instead of trying to get MS to comply with the politicians, maybe they should just stop SUPPORTING the problem by not purchasing Microsoft's goods and services. The only reason Microsoft is a monopoly is because the people who complain about their monopoly are running Windows.
That explains it! This story sheds considerable light on the behavior of posters on DailyKos, Democrat Underground, and yes, even Slashdot. They're not all children, they're just immature adults.:-)
Seriously, I think this phenomena (and the behaviors of the sights above) occurs because 1) people don't have to "grow up" to be survive/thrive in the world anymore, and 2) we are coddling our children too much, refusing to discipline them, and providing them with too many surrogate parents.
They have not protested one Democrat-run military since the draft ended (under a Repubican administration, I might add). This leads me to believe that they were protesting LBJ simply because they didn't want to get drafted. As soon as the draft got eliminated, hippies, progressives and peace activists stopped protesting any military actions conducted by Democrat presidents.
Granted, Carter didn't do a heck of a lot with the military, but Clinton sure as heck did. Where were the protests against Haiti, Bosnia, Waco, etc?
Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has...
For those of you still doubting the existance of media bias, compare and contrast the following two snippets. The first is from the story blurb. The second is written with an effort towards political neutrality:
Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has [done a bad thing].
Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Treasury Department initiative that has [done a bad thing].
See the difference? While both are accurate and truthful, the first is clearly biased. The quote above is from Slashdot, but the original Washington Post makes the same bias.
The core problem, way down deep, is that we have given our governments so much power and control over us, that they now sell the excess to the highest bidder. The solution is NOT to give the government more power. We need to start reducing government power, instead of giving them ever more of it.
Corporations love regulations, particularly in their own industry. That's because a regulatory environment keeps the small competitors out. Small mom-n-pops can't negotiate the regulatory morass. You have to be huge with a legion of lawyers to be able to exist in some industries. It's a big boys only club by design. Add more regulations and you merely transmute what little competition remains into ever more collusion.
p.s. You make some snarky asshole remarks about Dubya. Let me ask you: why if you hate him so much you want to give him even more power?
I switched to an "independent" company too. I got tired of Earthlink ($49) idiocy, had absolutely no desire to go with monopoly SBC ($29), and so went with a little guy for $59. It's ten dollars more, but I get a static address, no usage restrictions, tech support that knows what they're doing, I don't have to install any stupid software (not even PPPoE), and they support my operating system. They even included free domain hosting. This is for 1.5/384, but if I want I could pay extra to go up to 6.0/768.
The best thing is, latency is significantly less, something you don't normally think about. Even with the same speed as before it feels considerably faster.
Due to massive regulations and government encouraged monopolies, there is no competition. And without competition, why bother upgrading your infrastructure?
It's not the "frea mahkit", because your local telco owns the copper by law, and your local cableco owns the cable by law. A mass of heavy regulations keeps the competition at bay. What little competition there is exists in the DSL side, but you pay extra for the non-telco due to rent seeking.
In the days before broadband, the argument was that telephone and cable service were not suitable for free market competition, as it would be unwieldly to have several dozen parallel sets of cables and lines. So the AT&T monopoly was mandated by law, then broken up into regional monopolies mandated by law, and finally they allowed competition only if they didn't lay new local lines to compete with the former monopolies. In the case of cable, local governments simply gave out monopoly contracts to the highest bidder, paralleling the history of the government created railroad monopolies of the prior century.
But now the chickens have come home to roost, and we find that there is no competition for broadband. Well duh! Broadband is not, has never been, and probably never will be, a free market.
Slashdot Mirror
I used homicide as a parallel for death due to war as a civilian casualty.
Why? Whatever makes you think they're equivalent? Homicide is a much narrower definition than that used by www.iraqbodycount.net, which counts all deaths indirectly related to the occupation.
Here's a link that reference Iraq being safer than DC: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55283
But I'm always wary of claims that new weapons will reduce human misery.
If you remove the politics and emotionalism from the current Iraq occupation, it turns out that it has caused FAR LESS human misery than other similarly sized military actions. On both sides. Heck, it's statistically safer being an Iraqi civilian than a Washington DC resident.
New weapons that are designed to kill more people will of course increase human misery. But the current emphasis on military research is on weapons that are precise rather than indiscriminate.
The scores themselves are public knowledge. Compilations of the scores are not, and are copyrightable. In other words, if you attend the game and post the final score, you're fine, but if you cut-n-paste from ESPN, you're in violation of copyright.
Children do stupid things like this all the time.
When I was a child I did stupid things. And I got suspended from school for them too!
I'll make it simple for you, Mr. Kerry. Why do you insist on doing business with a company that is breaking the law?
(And yes I'm well aware that nothing is forcing us in the US to hand over our encryption yet but don't worry it'll probably happen sooner than you expect.)
It's a sad day when conspiracy theorists have to cite what-ifs as evidence.
You make exactly the same argument that the article makes.
What the fsck does Bush have to do with it? If you don't like Microsoft, don't use Microsoft's products. Simple. This applies not just to you as a person, but to the EU has an organization. Imagine if the EU and every government within it suddenly stopped using Microsoft products...
I thought the point of the GPL was to encourage people to share and reuse code.
No, the point of the GPL is to sue people you don't like. It's purpose is to be a big legal club you can bash people over the head wth. This may sound cynical, but if you reexamine the history of the GPL with this in mind, it will all suddenly start making sense.
It's not just distros, it's ANYONE who distributes the software. Including you! If you burn a copy of SimplyMepis for your friend, then you are obligated to *personally* make the sources available to him. Telling him to download the sources from Mepis just isn't good enough. Or at least that's the way today's interpretation of the GPL reads.
Abolishing copyright would result in GPL software being integrated into closed source binary products...
You GPL advocates drive me nuts! On one hand you say software should not be owned, and on the other you say we can't get rid of copyright. Make up your freaking minds.
Creating things is natural, copyright is not. The purpose of copyright is to create and enforce a monopoly via the government. Copyrights (and other forms of intellectual "property") are antithetical to the free market.
Instead of trying to get MS to comply with the politicians, maybe they should just stop SUPPORTING the problem by not purchasing Microsoft's goods and services. The only reason Microsoft is a monopoly is because the people who complain about their monopoly are running Windows.
They can find a place to access the internet and stay connected, but they can't find anywhere other than my garden to take a dump?
That explains it! This story sheds considerable light on the behavior of posters on DailyKos, Democrat Underground, and yes, even Slashdot. They're not all children, they're just immature adults. :-)
Seriously, I think this phenomena (and the behaviors of the sights above) occurs because 1) people don't have to "grow up" to be survive/thrive in the world anymore, and 2) we are coddling our children too much, refusing to discipline them, and providing them with too many surrogate parents.
They have not protested one Democrat-run military since the draft ended (under a Repubican administration, I might add). This leads me to believe that they were protesting LBJ simply because they didn't want to get drafted. As soon as the draft got eliminated, hippies, progressives and peace activists stopped protesting any military actions conducted by Democrat presidents.
Granted, Carter didn't do a heck of a lot with the military, but Clinton sure as heck did. Where were the protests against Haiti, Bosnia, Waco, etc?
Do all hippies think that we don't need a military?
No, they only think we don't need a military when a Republican is in office.
Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has...
For those of you still doubting the existance of media bias, compare and contrast the following two snippets. The first is from the story blurb. The second is written with an effort towards political neutrality:
Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has [done a bad thing].
Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Treasury Department initiative that has [done a bad thing].
See the difference? While both are accurate and truthful, the first is clearly biased. The quote above is from Slashdot, but the original Washington Post makes the same bias.
The core problem, way down deep, is that we have given our governments so much power and control over us, that they now sell the excess to the highest bidder. The solution is NOT to give the government more power. We need to start reducing government power, instead of giving them ever more of it.
Corporations love regulations, particularly in their own industry. That's because a regulatory environment keeps the small competitors out. Small mom-n-pops can't negotiate the regulatory morass. You have to be huge with a legion of lawyers to be able to exist in some industries. It's a big boys only club by design. Add more regulations and you merely transmute what little competition remains into ever more collusion.
p.s. You make some snarky asshole remarks about Dubya. Let me ask you: why if you hate him so much you want to give him even more power?
Simple solution. Just stop using GoDaddy.
2. The computer OS and games actually ran a little faster.
Only because you bought a new computer. On the same hardware, XP is slower than 98.
I switched to an "independent" company too. I got tired of Earthlink ($49) idiocy, had absolutely no desire to go with monopoly SBC ($29), and so went with a little guy for $59. It's ten dollars more, but I get a static address, no usage restrictions, tech support that knows what they're doing, I don't have to install any stupid software (not even PPPoE), and they support my operating system. They even included free domain hosting. This is for 1.5/384, but if I want I could pay extra to go up to 6.0/768.
The best thing is, latency is significantly less, something you don't normally think about. Even with the same speed as before it feels considerably faster.
Due to massive regulations and government encouraged monopolies, there is no competition. And without competition, why bother upgrading your infrastructure?
It's not the "frea mahkit", because your local telco owns the copper by law, and your local cableco owns the cable by law. A mass of heavy regulations keeps the competition at bay. What little competition there is exists in the DSL side, but you pay extra for the non-telco due to rent seeking.
In the days before broadband, the argument was that telephone and cable service were not suitable for free market competition, as it would be unwieldly to have several dozen parallel sets of cables and lines. So the AT&T monopoly was mandated by law, then broken up into regional monopolies mandated by law, and finally they allowed competition only if they didn't lay new local lines to compete with the former monopolies. In the case of cable, local governments simply gave out monopoly contracts to the highest bidder, paralleling the history of the government created railroad monopolies of the prior century.
But now the chickens have come home to roost, and we find that there is no competition for broadband. Well duh! Broadband is not, has never been, and probably never will be, a free market.
And how is this worse than having to buy basic cable service when you don't have a television?