Even a poor warlord will know that he's probably better off as a poor warlord than an ex-warlord (and, probably, soon-to-be-killed-warlord), unless he's got somewhere to run. It's not like a despot can expect a whole lot of forgiveness and understanding from, well, anybody, short of extraordinary circumstances like a clear need for national amnesty and reconcilliation like in South Africa -- and that need won't necessarily be granted in the ex-warlord's lifetime.
The actor in the Milgram experiments was also told to protest about heart trouble late in the experiment, and basically to plead for mercy. Most subjects, if memory serves, still proceed to administer what likely would have been lethal voltages were the shocks real and had the actor really been a victim with a weak heart.
That's a utilitarian viewpoint taken to extremes. A libertarian philosopher or other moralist might point out that utilitarian values would cheerfully encourage the complete annihilation of one individual's rights if the apparent benefit to everybody else compensated -- for instance, allowing a lynching of a provably innocent man to occur in order to avoid a community getting even angrier and rioting.
No, only the greedy went crazy. Reasonably intelligent people who didn't have extra money to lose and were aware of that had the option of staing with much more conservative options, such as bonds, broad-based mutual funds, the so-called blue chips, or even low-paying-but-guaranteed certificates of deposit.
As for "making it big", it wouldn't be considered "big" if it were easy and common. Your "average" American or citizen of any other major industrialized nation has it pretty damn well off, for instance; I'm sure that there are many, many people in the world who would consider even *getting* into the country "making it big". Hell, illegals sometimes enter, work low-paying jobs with employers who wink at it, and then even save enough to send money back home -- amounts which are quite significant in those areas.
Those who want to make it bigger are better off founding a business than playing the lottery. The odds aren't that great (*), but they're a hell of a lot better than the voluntary Math Tax.
(*) Marx-bait: Go ask the manufacturing unions why they don't use their considerable treasuries for opening up worker-owned collective factories if you don't believe that starting and running a successful business is non-trivial, or that investors incur significant risk. Drive, intelligence, marketing savvy and competence do not guarantee success -- they can only weight the odds.
Winston Churchill was at a large house party and was chatting up some Duchess or another and was already quite, shall we say, toasty. He looked at her and asked: "Madam, would you sleep with me for, say, a million pounds."
She paused and responded: "Well, Sir Winston, I believe I would."
"How about ten pounds?"
The aristocratic lady was horrified. "Sir Winston!" she gasped. "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
To which, Churchill smiled and replied: "Madam, we have already settled that question. Now all we're doing is haggling over price!"
- Formations -- configurable, no less. - Fog of war, that early, yes. - Fatigue and supply actually matter. Ignore logistics? Then you lose. Exhaust an army through battle after battle with no rest? They'll fight much worse until they do get some rest. - Terrain matters -- a LOT. - Very distinct difficulty levels as set by opponent -- and it's upfront about bonuses and penalties that the AI gets. - An AI that actually doesn't appear to use omniscience cheats. - Fortresses that you can actually storm. - A map that doesn't conflate tactical distance with strategic distance -- battles occur on a tiny part of the map, zoomed-in. Most so-called RTS games nowadays are tactical, at best. - Time scales also make more sense. Troop training is slow, and isn't micromanaged; and troop movement across the map is slow compared to battle speed. Fast clicking won't save you if you mismanaged your troops beforehand. - Configurable up the wazoo -- (in game, not map) set depth and danger level of water, set density of woods, set recruitment rates, set whether or not forts supply food, et al. - Came with a sweet map editor. - Allows flags for victory locations. - No effort wasted on cut-scenes or other fluff; it's all pure gameplay. - Clicking speed never mattered. Strategic thinking did. - A manual that actually presented some very basic military theory and history instead of a cheesy storyline about some fantasy land.
People who are much more intelligent and rational about public policy, and who thus prefer the rule of law over arbitrary whims of folks like yourself -- that's who. This country wasn't founded to be run by fiat.
Er, even Ashcroft -- whom many anti-gunners would regard as an extremist, I'm sure -- acknowledges that the Second is (much like the First) subject to restrictions. The First hasn't been interpreted as absolute (speech that incites panic and disaster, for instance), and most folks don't consider the Second absolute, either.
Nonsense. Merely considering the rational consequences of behavior leads to numerous morals -- for instance, it's quite reasonable to believe that allowing the arbitrary seizure of other people's property by force would lead to societal breakdown, anarchy, and factional rule. Permitting arbitrary homicide has similar consequences. And so forth. There's no compelling need to believe in something irrational like deities, aliens, or the animist nature spirits, for that matter.
I'd consider it a boilerplate disclaimer -- and one that's pretty relevant in this particular arena. It's rather polite of them, and a bit rare at times (imagine Peter Jennings having to wear a Mickey Mouse cap, or with a disclaimer "The following news program was brought to you by Disney" for each broadcast).
Re:"At this PC convention.." What/Where?
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
It's labeled 'Tech PC Expo' in multiple places.
Re:Nothing untrue in the article at all. /. howeve
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The editors tactitly handed the submitter a soapbox. It is NOT like/. is at all obligated to accept all submissions -- they don't -- nor are they somehow barred from attaching comments, such as doubts as to the usefulness of the summary. In fact, they could let someone else submit with an actual, genuine, informative summary.
Instead, they handed the guy a flamethrower in full knowledge that a large percentage of the posters would be kneejerkers -- which brings in more hits and page views. And you suggest that they aren't responsible for that?
Not all servers are web servers -- and even if he's only counting web servers, Apache != Linux. Apache runs on other Unixes and Windows as well.
'sides, he's talking about big companies. How many of those Apache "servers" are home computers serving up personal content? They don't serve much content, don't have that many users, and generally aren't exactly mission-critical.
Random sampling of some big entities (via Netcraft), trying to limit guesses to well-known organizations and aren't directly in the fray:
- Amazon: Apache/Linux - Ebay: IIS/Windows - NY Times: Netscape/Solaris - Buy.com: IIS/Solaris - Bn.com: IIS/Windows - id Software: IIS/Windows - Interplay: IIS/Windows - Washington Post: Netscape/Solaris - CNN: Netscape/Solaris - Dell: IIS/Windows - IBM: IBM_HTTP_SERVER/Apache(?)/AIX - US Bank: IIS/unknown (but IIS isn't exactly portable...) - Morgan Stanley Dean Witter: Netscape/Solaris - General Motors: Netscape/Solaris - Playboy: Netscape/Solaris - Penthouse: Apache/Solaris - General Electric: Netscape/Solaris - Bantam: Apache/Solaris - Yahoo!: unknown/FreeBSD - ebworld: IIS/Windows - US State Department: Netscape/Solaris - UPS: Netscape/Solaris
Judging from that, Solaris and Windows are each FAR FAR more prevalent than Linux.
It's official -- Slashdot editors and article submitters now regularly stoop to trolling, and most of the early posts in this discussion need to be slapped with -1s for stupidly flaming MSNBC after not reading the article (not the pointless non-summary), but the actual linked article.
Honestly? If you have nuclear devices, you'd better be damn sure that they'll work, and you'd also better be damn sure that every potential target believes that a) they'll work, and b) if pushed hard enough, we'll use them. If either of the latter two conditions doesn't hold, then there's a risk of a) finding out that they fizzled (bad), or b) using them in a situation that could have been avoided if sufficient fear had already existed.
As to cancer and HIV/AIDS, I don't see how you can put them in even the same ballpark. HIV is linked very, very strongly to easily-avoided behavior -- the use of prostitutes, promiscuity, needle exchange et al. Most cancers victims (sun-related melanomas excepted) are far more innocent of their ailments.
Health insurance in the States, with the exception of Medicare/Medicaid, is not there primarily to help people -- it's a way to amortize risk. It exists as a form of gambling where the private issuers of such policies and their actuaries believe that they can make money off people's aversion to risk -- and, unlike socialism, most of these plans (again, not M/M) are strictly voluntary where available. That's why insurance companies and HMOs fight tooth and nail to be able to deny people treatments -- the aim is money, not health.
The Vatican hierarchy is increasingly unpopular due to its history of mishandling a certain long-running scandal (Its behavior borders on RICO, arguably -- replete with hush money, an apparent belief in protecting its own from temporal authorities, the need to stifle news to maintain a healthy level of donations, and all while structuring dioceses and parishes to minimize financial liability exposed to any one case. Bring on the DAs...). The Pope, as head of the organization, may be a logical target for anybody who harbors an violent, unhealthy hatred of 'em.
And, of course, the temporal world leaders meeting for summits would also be a highly tempting target for folks with a variety of agendas.
According to Israeli reports, a fair number of bomber-wannabes actually fail due to lack of nerve, being spotted and neutralized before being able to detonate the explosives, and so forth. Some of these causes could be worked around with a decent radio-controlled device and an observer with a trigger (who, for instance, could blow up the explosives belt if the bomber suddenly changes his mind and decides to surrender).
Also, they're not all suicidal. From what I've read, the authorities in Pakistan are at least considering the possibility that the recent car bombing there was remote-detonated... and it might be easier to get one smart, but non-suicidal electrical engineer with a talent for bomb-design into a Western country than enough wannabe martyrs to mount a really prolonged campaign. The Unabomber managed to send quite a few mail bombs, for instance, and probably was more effective due to apparent lack of death wish.
Actually, starting from the very first Militia Acts, it was the individuals and not the government which was responsible for arming the people -- and the people kept the arms themselves. In addition, the militia consisted merely of men within a given age group... which is largely the case today (see 'unorganized militia' in the US Code. Yes, it's a sexist definition. But it's there.)
If a site that you're linking to is spreading libel or slander, and it's fairly clear, then you probably shouldn't be linking to it except for the sake of argument. If it's a meticulously accurate site, or a clear parody, and the relevant type (*) is protected under your local law, you probably shouldn't have to worry.
(*) In some jurisdictions, truth as a defense does not outweigh malevolent intent, IIRC. In some places, such as dictatorships, merely linking to a "we don't like the ruler 'coz..." site might be an unhealthy idea.
Perhaps under Dutch law, spreading information that isn't particularly useful except for sabotage (For instance, while one might argue that it informs policy decisions by showing a risk, another might claim that it would be much more responsible to point out that there IS a risk without illustrating the method. In this case, the latter would seem plausible since the underailable train might not have been engineered yet.) might be considered as an accessory, or perhaps as some sort of national security violation -- unless their judicial system is incredibly arbitrary, they need a better justification than mere dislike. Ask a Dutchman.
It depends on context. Did, for instance, the index page contain a substantial number of links to mirrors of the same or highly similar information? If so, it's quite possibly not coincidence. Was it accompanied by instructions as to which subsequent links to follow along with a description of the content? If so, it's definitely evidence of intent, and then intent of the intervening links isn't as criticial to establish.
...otherwise it's trivial to circumvent the prohibition on direct links only.
For instance, suppose linking directly to document A is banned. Then the hosting site could simply create a page with a "wink wink" link to document A, and the site against which the injunction is placed could link the the page with the "wink wink" link, with identical intent as with a direct link.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for a ban to also include indirect links OF WHATEVER LENGTH (arbitrary numbers of pages of "Are you sure? Are you really sure? etc") so long as intent is clear (e.g. putting up silly links to Disney on each of the "are you sure" pages should not absolve them). One can even make a case for neglect if the linker should have known better according to a reasonable-person standard.
Of course, even if the ruling notes this justification -- I don't read Dutch, and I'm leery of trusting a web translator on legalese -- Indymedia isn't exactly an independent with regards to their own case, and probably wouldn't mention this.
Since the dawn of time. You don't, for instance, have the right to tour Air Force One whenever the hell you feel like it, even though it's taxpayer funded.
You didn't pay for it directly -- the government did, for which it took your money at gunpoint. You don't have direct say over how that money is spent, because it's no longer your money.
Slashdot Mirror
Even a poor warlord will know that he's probably better off as a poor warlord than an ex-warlord (and, probably, soon-to-be-killed-warlord), unless he's got somewhere to run. It's not like a despot can expect a whole lot of forgiveness and understanding from, well, anybody, short of extraordinary circumstances like a clear need for national amnesty and reconcilliation like in South Africa -- and that need won't necessarily be granted in the ex-warlord's lifetime.
A chilling addendum:
The actor in the Milgram experiments was also told to protest about heart trouble late in the experiment, and basically to plead for mercy. Most subjects, if memory serves, still proceed to administer what likely would have been lethal voltages were the shocks real and had the actor really been a victim with a weak heart.
That's a utilitarian viewpoint taken to extremes. A libertarian philosopher or other moralist might point out that utilitarian values would cheerfully encourage the complete annihilation of one individual's rights if the apparent benefit to everybody else compensated -- for instance, allowing a lynching of a provably innocent man to occur in order to avoid a community getting even angrier and rioting.
No, only the greedy went crazy. Reasonably intelligent people who didn't have extra money to lose and were aware of that had the option of staing with much more conservative options, such as bonds, broad-based mutual funds, the so-called blue chips, or even low-paying-but-guaranteed certificates of deposit.
As for "making it big", it wouldn't be considered "big" if it were easy and common. Your "average" American or citizen of any other major industrialized nation has it pretty damn well off, for instance; I'm sure that there are many, many people in the world who would consider even *getting* into the country "making it big". Hell, illegals sometimes enter, work low-paying jobs with employers who wink at it, and then even save enough to send money back home -- amounts which are quite significant in those areas.
Those who want to make it bigger are better off founding a business than playing the lottery. The odds aren't that great (*), but they're a hell of a lot better than the voluntary Math Tax.
(*) Marx-bait: Go ask the manufacturing unions why they don't use their considerable treasuries for opening up worker-owned collective factories if you don't believe that starting and running a successful business is non-trivial, or that investors incur significant risk. Drive, intelligence, marketing savvy and competence do not guarantee success -- they can only weight the odds.
An old but relevant and suitably scathing joke:
Winston Churchill was at a large house party and was chatting up some Duchess or another and was already quite, shall we say, toasty. He looked at her and asked: "Madam, would you sleep with me for, say, a million pounds."
She paused and responded: "Well, Sir Winston, I believe I would."
"How about ten pounds?"
The aristocratic lady was horrified. "Sir Winston!" she gasped. "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
To which, Churchill smiled and replied: "Madam, we have already settled that question. Now all we're doing is haggling over price!"
Feh. Try "The Ancient Art of War".
- Formations -- configurable, no less.
- Fog of war, that early, yes.
- Fatigue and supply actually matter. Ignore logistics? Then you lose. Exhaust an army through battle after battle with no rest? They'll fight much worse until they do get some rest.
- Terrain matters -- a LOT.
- Very distinct difficulty levels as set by opponent -- and it's upfront about bonuses and penalties that the AI gets.
- An AI that actually doesn't appear to use omniscience cheats.
- Fortresses that you can actually storm.
- A map that doesn't conflate tactical distance with strategic distance -- battles occur on a tiny part of the map, zoomed-in. Most so-called RTS games nowadays are tactical, at best.
- Time scales also make more sense. Troop training is slow, and isn't micromanaged; and troop movement across the map is slow compared to battle speed. Fast clicking won't save you if you mismanaged your troops beforehand.
- Configurable up the wazoo -- (in game, not map) set depth and danger level of water, set density of woods, set recruitment rates, set whether or not forts supply food, et al.
- Came with a sweet map editor.
- Allows flags for victory locations.
- No effort wasted on cut-scenes or other fluff; it's all pure gameplay.
- Clicking speed never mattered. Strategic thinking did.
- A manual that actually presented some very basic military theory and history instead of a cheesy storyline about some fantasy land.
It's was a brilliant game that deserves a remake.
People who are much more intelligent and rational about public policy, and who thus prefer the rule of law over arbitrary whims of folks like yourself -- that's who. This country wasn't founded to be run by fiat.
Er, even Ashcroft -- whom many anti-gunners would regard as an extremist, I'm sure -- acknowledges that the Second is (much like the First) subject to restrictions. The First hasn't been interpreted as absolute (speech that incites panic and disaster, for instance), and most folks don't consider the Second absolute, either.
Nonsense. Merely considering the rational consequences of behavior leads to numerous morals -- for instance, it's quite reasonable to believe that allowing the arbitrary seizure of other people's property by force would lead to societal breakdown, anarchy, and factional rule. Permitting arbitrary homicide has similar consequences. And so forth. There's no compelling need to believe in something irrational like deities, aliens, or the animist nature spirits, for that matter.
Hm. I read 'develop' and 'employ', but I don't see 'distribute'. Has this been tested?
I'd consider it a boilerplate disclaimer -- and one that's pretty relevant in this particular arena. It's rather polite of them, and a bit rare at times (imagine Peter Jennings having to wear a Mickey Mouse cap, or with a disclaimer "The following news program was brought to you by Disney" for each broadcast).
It's labeled 'Tech PC Expo' in multiple places.
The editors tactitly handed the submitter a soapbox. It is NOT like /. is at all obligated to accept all submissions -- they don't -- nor are they somehow barred from attaching comments, such as doubts as to the usefulness of the summary. In fact, they could let someone else submit with an actual, genuine, informative summary.
Instead, they handed the guy a flamethrower in full knowledge that a large percentage of the posters would be kneejerkers -- which brings in more hits and page views. And you suggest that they aren't responsible for that?
Not all servers are web servers -- and even if he's only counting web servers, Apache != Linux. Apache runs on other Unixes and Windows as well.
'sides, he's talking about big companies. How many of those Apache "servers" are home computers serving up personal content? They don't serve much content, don't have that many users, and generally aren't exactly mission-critical.
Random sampling of some big entities (via Netcraft), trying to limit guesses to well-known organizations and aren't directly in the fray:
- Amazon: Apache/Linux
- Ebay: IIS/Windows
- NY Times: Netscape/Solaris
- Buy.com: IIS/Solaris
- Bn.com: IIS/Windows
- id Software: IIS/Windows
- Interplay: IIS/Windows
- Washington Post: Netscape/Solaris
- CNN: Netscape/Solaris
- Dell: IIS/Windows
- IBM: IBM_HTTP_SERVER/Apache(?)/AIX
- US Bank: IIS/unknown (but IIS isn't exactly portable...)
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter: Netscape/Solaris
- General Motors: Netscape/Solaris
- Playboy: Netscape/Solaris
- Penthouse: Apache/Solaris
- General Electric: Netscape/Solaris
- Bantam: Apache/Solaris
- Yahoo!: unknown/FreeBSD
- ebworld: IIS/Windows
- US State Department: Netscape/Solaris
- UPS: Netscape/Solaris
Judging from that, Solaris and Windows are each FAR FAR more prevalent than Linux.
It's official -- Slashdot editors and article submitters now regularly stoop to trolling, and most of the early posts in this discussion need to be slapped with -1s for stupidly flaming MSNBC after not reading the article (not the pointless non-summary), but the actual linked article.
Honestly? If you have nuclear devices, you'd better be damn sure that they'll work, and you'd also better be damn sure that every potential target believes that a) they'll work, and b) if pushed hard enough, we'll use them. If either of the latter two conditions doesn't hold, then there's a risk of a) finding out that they fizzled (bad), or b) using them in a situation that could have been avoided if sufficient fear had already existed.
As to cancer and HIV/AIDS, I don't see how you can put them in even the same ballpark. HIV is linked very, very strongly to easily-avoided behavior -- the use of prostitutes, promiscuity, needle exchange et al. Most cancers victims (sun-related melanomas excepted) are far more innocent of their ailments.
Not in the United States, where truth is a valid defense. In certain other countries, however, yes, painful truth can be blocked.
Health insurance in the States, with the exception of Medicare/Medicaid, is not there primarily to help people -- it's a way to amortize risk. It exists as a form of gambling where the private issuers of such policies and their actuaries believe that they can make money off people's aversion to risk -- and, unlike socialism, most of these plans (again, not M/M) are strictly voluntary where available. That's why insurance companies and HMOs fight tooth and nail to be able to deny people treatments -- the aim is money, not health.
The Vatican hierarchy is increasingly unpopular due to its history of mishandling a certain long-running scandal (Its behavior borders on RICO, arguably -- replete with hush money, an apparent belief in protecting its own from temporal authorities, the need to stifle news to maintain a healthy level of donations, and all while structuring dioceses and parishes to minimize financial liability exposed to any one case. Bring on the DAs...). The Pope, as head of the organization, may be a logical target for anybody who harbors an violent, unhealthy hatred of 'em.
And, of course, the temporal world leaders meeting for summits would also be a highly tempting target for folks with a variety of agendas.
According to Israeli reports, a fair number of bomber-wannabes actually fail due to lack of nerve, being spotted and neutralized before being able to detonate the explosives, and so forth. Some of these causes could be worked around with a decent radio-controlled device and an observer with a trigger (who, for instance, could blow up the explosives belt if the bomber suddenly changes his mind and decides to surrender).
Also, they're not all suicidal. From what I've read, the authorities in Pakistan are at least considering the possibility that the recent car bombing there was remote-detonated... and it might be easier to get one smart, but non-suicidal electrical engineer with a talent for bomb-design into a Western country than enough wannabe martyrs to mount a really prolonged campaign. The Unabomber managed to send quite a few mail bombs, for instance, and probably was more effective due to apparent lack of death wish.
Actually, starting from the very first Militia Acts, it was the individuals and not the government which was responsible for arming the people -- and the people kept the arms themselves. In addition, the militia consisted merely of men within a given age group... which is largely the case today (see 'unorganized militia' in the US Code. Yes, it's a sexist definition. But it's there.)
If a site that you're linking to is spreading libel or slander, and it's fairly clear, then you probably shouldn't be linking to it except for the sake of argument. If it's a meticulously accurate site, or a clear parody, and the relevant type (*) is protected under your local law, you probably shouldn't have to worry.
(*) In some jurisdictions, truth as a defense does not outweigh malevolent intent, IIRC. In some places, such as dictatorships, merely linking to a "we don't like the ruler 'coz..." site might be an unhealthy idea.
Perhaps under Dutch law, spreading information that isn't particularly useful except for sabotage (For instance, while one might argue that it informs policy decisions by showing a risk, another might claim that it would be much more responsible to point out that there IS a risk without illustrating the method. In this case, the latter would seem plausible since the underailable train might not have been engineered yet.) might be considered as an accessory, or perhaps as some sort of national security violation -- unless their judicial system is incredibly arbitrary, they need a better justification than mere dislike. Ask a Dutchman.
It depends on context. Did, for instance, the index page contain a substantial number of links to mirrors of the same or highly similar information? If so, it's quite possibly not coincidence. Was it accompanied by instructions as to which subsequent links to follow along with a description of the content? If so, it's definitely evidence of intent, and then intent of the intervening links isn't as criticial to establish.
...otherwise it's trivial to circumvent the prohibition on direct links only.
For instance, suppose linking directly to document A is banned. Then the hosting site could simply create a page with a "wink wink" link to document A, and the site against which the injunction is placed could link the the page with the "wink wink" link, with identical intent as with a direct link.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for a ban to also include indirect links OF WHATEVER LENGTH (arbitrary numbers of pages of "Are you sure? Are you really sure? etc") so long as intent is clear (e.g. putting up silly links to Disney on each of the "are you sure" pages should not absolve them). One can even make a case for neglect if the linker should have known better according to a reasonable-person standard.
Of course, even if the ruling notes this justification -- I don't read Dutch, and I'm leery of trusting a web translator on legalese -- Indymedia isn't exactly an independent with regards to their own case, and probably wouldn't mention this.
Since the dawn of time. You don't, for instance, have the right to tour Air Force One whenever the hell you feel like it, even though it's taxpayer funded.
You didn't pay for it directly -- the government did, for which it took your money at gunpoint. You don't have direct say over how that money is spent, because it's no longer your money.