When the authorities will not protect the public, it is up to the public to protect themselves.
Its never been the "authorities" job to protect the public; the public was always supposed to protect itself. Part of the reason I believe the 2nd amendment was added. When you give up your ability (and right) to protect yourself and give it to others, you're just asking for trouble.
I'm not talking about variants; the "true" deb or slack used to be very popular, but have since wanned in favor of others (although they are based off of deb or slack, they are not quite the same).
When I'm talking about consistency I'm talking about popularity, but I wasn't saying they were irrelevent.
You don't get it do you? You don't have the right to remove parts of the software you purchased to use them on another computer. He's not running a licensed copy of Windows (he HAS one, but it is not installed anywhere), so he has no right to run a part of said software.
That would be systems that identify themselves in the http header as Vista increased. Any correlation between the actual number of systems with Vista and the number identifying themselves as such is simply an invention of the makers of the study.
Your assumption is that a significant number of people change the headers sent by thier browser of choice. Somehow, I seriously doubt that those people are significate in this study.
And I feel that in the next few month you'll find yourself in a new house! How nice!
I'm sure there's a decent number of raindrops hitting the ocean, but i don't think that they matter much when measuring how much water is already in the ocean..
Iraq did 9/11? Who cares. Saddam gone is good for the world dudes. Just ask the Saudis how they feel about it....
Well using 9/11 to invade Iraq isn't really that great of a cause; if you had so many good reasons, why did Bush try to link Saddam to 9/11? Just use one of the many good reasons already there.
As far as asking what the Saudis think, I really don't give a shit what they think. When a government can arrest and kill a woman because you saw her ankle, I don't really care if that government feels "safe" or not.
If the casino screwed up, and didn't even bother checking the slot machines before letting people play, perhaps its their own tough shit. Did a casino ever give back someones money when the machine screwed up in their favor? Didn't think so.
I don't get your point. The "time of War or public danger" relates to the exception given in the fifth. Basically, they don't need an inditment to hold you if you're in the military during a time of war and you commit a crime.
Well whether you want to get into or not is irrelevent, as it lies at the heart of this debate. That's why those legal notices are presented to the Linux users.
Right. The founders thought parties so very, very wrong, that Jefferson and Madison started one, amd Hamilton created another which Washington joined.
And yet Washington warned that such parties were dangerous.
And it didn't work. That's why the Senate was re-designed; unfortunately the re-design is not a huge improvement.
The senate was re-designed because the progressives couldn't get their policies through, because they were being declared unconstitutional based on the States rights clause. Turn forward a bit, and what has happened? States rights are constantly being trampled, and we have an out of control federal goverment where your voice doesn't matter at all. Try digging deeper into history instead of whatever crap was in your HS text book.
They were indeed great thinkers, and they created a political system that was probably the best in the world up to that point. Fortunately, though, they were wise enough to know that they weren't necessarily right about everything, which is why they gave us a way to change the system they created: the amendment process. It is, quite reasonably, designed to be difficult but not impossible.
So I assume then you've read their justification for setting things up the way they did?
Some of them thought parties are wrong, not all of them -- and in the event, it didn't really matter; the reason Washington warned against partisanship in his farewell address was because proto-parties were already forming, in fact had already formed during the period of governance under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was even written. If Washington, with his immense personal prestige, couldn't prevent this from happening, no one else was going to either.
Its not a clear cut issue. I'm sure their feelings on political parties may have clashed with the notitions of free assembly. Now that we have 200 years of perspective on political parties, perhaps its time we get rid of them.
The latent aristocracism many of the Founders carried around with them from their pre-Revolutionary backgrounds was one of their few great mistakes. Fortunately, this is one of the things that's changed in the last couple of centuries. The Long Revolution against the "new breed of glittering men" started in 1776, and got a big boost in 1828, but wasn't really complete until 1865. And like most battles worth fighting, it's had to be fought over and over again.
I believe they were onto something. Should someone who is mentally retarded by allowed to vote? I'm not sure, but I lean to the No answer. Look what happened after 9/11; panic and demand for "action right now" gave us wars we cannot win, the patriot act, police powers exanding without oversight, illegal wiretaps, the notion that the executive can do whatever it wants. All this was supported by the people.
When was this, exactly?
In the early years of the republic, before the parties had any great influence.
Yes, they are included with Windows as part of the software you purchased. Copying them from your Windows machine is pirating the software. If you want to legally use those codecs, you must pay for Windows (or a Mac).
This isn't the same; this is "by using this software you MAY in fact be breaking the law, and assume all responsibility." Not quite "copying this software is illegal."
Would you rather live in a world where you and your significant other can get pregnant whenever you choose, but you only get to 'have a kid' if you can find some way to provide enough food to make the life sustainable?
Right, because you should be able to have a kid you cannot care for. Its amazing that people even think that's a remotely good idea, let alone a "right."
do you really want the government dictating the kids you can have? what if you get knocked up and go over the states limit? will they abort like china?
Given the rampant stupidity I'm seeing in this country today, I'm all for stelizing people as soon as they are born. Then, after you've proven your smart and can take care of yourself can the procedure be undone.
Personally I'm tired of paying for welfare moms just popping out more kids to get more welfare. Don't think the problems that bad? Goto MS, the politicions there actively encourage this promising more welfare money to get elected.
Until recently, I shared this exact opinion. However, I've changed my mind now and think that parties are absolutely fine, as long as they're kept under good scrutiny. The current entrenched parties are a *symptom* of the real problem - the electoral system.
Ahh, well thanks for pointing out the mistakes of the great thinkers that came up with our Constitution and tried to start a truely free society. Don't let the fact that they had the opposite views that political parties are wrong, and the electoral system is meant to act as a buffer between the people (who panic and will cut their own foot off if they think it will make them safer).
You pretty much need parties in national government. The elected need to have a full spectrum of policies, which is pretty difficult for independents to do. I don't agree with independent candidates standing on 1 local issue; that seems inappropriate for national government, and should be dealt with by local government.
No you don't. We functioned fine without them. The problem is that the feds have assumed way more authority than granted to them by the Constitution. I fail to see how political parties would help fix that problem, especially considering that's one of the reasons we have arrived at this point (the party spans local, state and federal government... no wonder the states have been losing power).
Given that you need a full spectrum of policies, parties make sense. People clump together to form their spectrum of policies. However, what you need to eliminate is people not being able to get SOME kind of representation, even if they're not in the majority. That's where the problem lies; first-past-the-post. It needs to be replaced with open-list proportional representation. Check out Finland and Israel for 2 good examples. A party system, but without the inherent evils that come with 2/3 party entrenchment.
Nope, parties just arbitrary divide people. People don't think about issues at all, they just vote republican or democrat without thinking. Remove parties, and now you will have to actually think about what the candidate is saying.
The electoral system and the way the Senate was supposed to be (represents the state governments, NOT THE PEOPLE), was DESIGNED to make sure the minority didn't get screwed.
But the combination of essentially only two distros focusing in a major (and successful) way on enterprise users - Red Hat and SUSE - and, on the other hand, Ubuntu becoming the major enthusiast distro by far, leads to a world in which we have basically 3 main distros: Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu.
Funny, I remember when it was RedHat, deb or slack. Then RedHat, knoppix, Mandriva. Then Redhat, Gentoo. So far it seems only RedHat is a constant, but others come and go.
Apparently its growing so far that each year since 2001 has been the 'Year of desktop Linux.' You fail to consider that Linux could be growing in spite of there being so many distros... that maybe it would be gaining much much more traction if there was only one or two.
Until that happens, JoeLinux may as well only exist for Joe and his nerd buddies; to complain about having "too many distributions" is (to me) kind of like complaining at having too many McDonalds (or whatever your preferred chain is). They are all similar. They all serve mostly the same food, with mostly the same flavour. So you should only need one or two, right?
Yet another crap/. analogy. First, McDonalds are identical, at least in the states. They have a menu that must be offered at all locations. Second, you need more than one location because they'd have a hard time in LA if their only location was in NYC. So each individual branch is not comparable to a Linux distro.
If you were talking about fast food burger chains (McDs, Wendys, etc.) you may have a point.. but I notice that there aren't 300 national fast food chains burger too.
Back on topic, there may be only a few distros that a business would run, but for developers you now need to worry about 300 distros that your software might be run on if you're target is home users. So it is a problem; with Windows, basically if you target Win2k, you hit everyone because your app will run on Xp and Vista as well. However, since Xp is the most common, you don't really have to worry about targeting even 2000.
Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.
Or perhaps MS is respecting the licensing choice of developers, as it would like others to do.
Or perhaps both of us really don't know why MS is acting as it is, since neither of us know the people making the decisions or were in meetings regarding the actions.
The deals may stop, but then MS may begin actively sueing companies that distribute gpl3 software. Do you think it'd be good if Redhat's legal now tookup 110% of revenue?
I guess you miss my point; you don't need open source to see the side effects of the driver installation. This could have been discovered just as easily by someone running Tripwire after each install, whether the source was opened or closed has no bearing on how quickly this COULD have been discovered. There may be other cases that would back up your theory, but this is certainly not one of them.
I'd argue that open source isn't offering another station; because the source is open, a particular package may be implicitly trusted by the installer. As I pointed out with a comment on GCC, just because you have the source does not mean you are safe or can even be sure of what the compiled binary will do.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right, you have every right to be angry at someone fixing your door for you which was kicked in. Shame on them!
When the authorities will not protect the public, it is up to the public to protect themselves.
Its never been the "authorities" job to protect the public; the public was always supposed to protect itself. Part of the reason I believe the 2nd amendment was added. When you give up your ability (and right) to protect yourself and give it to others, you're just asking for trouble.
I'm not talking about variants; the "true" deb or slack used to be very popular, but have since wanned in favor of others (although they are based off of deb or slack, they are not quite the same).
When I'm talking about consistency I'm talking about popularity, but I wasn't saying they were irrelevent.
You don't get it do you? You don't have the right to remove parts of the software you purchased to use them on another computer. He's not running a licensed copy of Windows (he HAS one, but it is not installed anywhere), so he has no right to run a part of said software.
I don't think it would have changed, but leaving Saddam in would likely have continued to annoy the countries there, as he was pretty secular.
That would be systems that identify themselves in the http header as Vista increased. Any correlation between the actual number of systems with Vista and the number identifying themselves as such is simply an invention of the makers of the study.
Your assumption is that a significant number of people change the headers sent by thier browser of choice. Somehow, I seriously doubt that those people are significate in this study.
And I feel that in the next few month you'll find yourself in a new house! How nice!
I'm sure there's a decent number of raindrops hitting the ocean, but i don't think that they matter much when measuring how much water is already in the ocean..
Iraq did 9/11? Who cares. Saddam gone is good for the world dudes. Just ask the Saudis how they feel about it....
Well using 9/11 to invade Iraq isn't really that great of a cause; if you had so many good reasons, why did Bush try to link Saddam to 9/11? Just use one of the many good reasons already there.
As far as asking what the Saudis think, I really don't give a shit what they think. When a government can arrest and kill a woman because you saw her ankle, I don't really care if that government feels "safe" or not.
If the casino screwed up, and didn't even bother checking the slot machines before letting people play, perhaps its their own tough shit. Did a casino ever give back someones money when the machine screwed up in their favor? Didn't think so.
I don't get your point. The "time of War or public danger" relates to the exception given in the fifth. Basically, they don't need an inditment to hold you if you're in the military during a time of war and you commit a crime.
Well whether you want to get into or not is irrelevent, as it lies at the heart of this debate. That's why those legal notices are presented to the Linux users.
Right. The founders thought parties so very, very wrong, that Jefferson and Madison started one, amd Hamilton created another which Washington joined.
And yet Washington warned that such parties were dangerous.
And it didn't work. That's why the Senate was re-designed; unfortunately the re-design is not a huge improvement.
The senate was re-designed because the progressives couldn't get their policies through, because they were being declared unconstitutional based on the States rights clause. Turn forward a bit, and what has happened? States rights are constantly being trampled, and we have an out of control federal goverment where your voice doesn't matter at all. Try digging deeper into history instead of whatever crap was in your HS text book.
They were indeed great thinkers, and they created a political system that was probably the best in the world up to that point. Fortunately, though, they were wise enough to know that they weren't necessarily right about everything, which is why they gave us a way to change the system they created: the amendment process. It is, quite reasonably, designed to be difficult but not impossible.
So I assume then you've read their justification for setting things up the way they did?
Some of them thought parties are wrong, not all of them -- and in the event, it didn't really matter; the reason Washington warned against partisanship in his farewell address was because proto-parties were already forming, in fact had already formed during the period of governance under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was even written. If Washington, with his immense personal prestige, couldn't prevent this from happening, no one else was going to either.
Its not a clear cut issue. I'm sure their feelings on political parties may have clashed with the notitions of free assembly. Now that we have 200 years of perspective on political parties, perhaps its time we get rid of them.
The latent aristocracism many of the Founders carried around with them from their pre-Revolutionary backgrounds was one of their few great mistakes. Fortunately, this is one of the things that's changed in the last couple of centuries. The Long Revolution against the "new breed of glittering men" started in 1776, and got a big boost in 1828, but wasn't really complete until 1865. And like most battles worth fighting, it's had to be fought over and over again.
I believe they were onto something. Should someone who is mentally retarded by allowed to vote? I'm not sure, but I lean to the No answer. Look what happened after 9/11; panic and demand for "action right now" gave us wars we cannot win, the patriot act, police powers exanding without oversight, illegal wiretaps, the notion that the executive can do whatever it wants. All this was supported by the people.
When was this, exactly?
In the early years of the republic, before the parties had any great influence.
Yes, they are included with Windows as part of the software you purchased. Copying them from your Windows machine is pirating the software. If you want to legally use those codecs, you must pay for Windows (or a Mac).
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain the software/video/etc I would likeI pirate it.
Hmm... kinda like this:
If there is no legal (or affordable) way for me to obtain [a PS3] I would likely [steal] it.
Its called rationalization and its not a good thing.
This isn't the same; this is "by using this software you MAY in fact be breaking the law, and assume all responsibility." Not quite "copying this software is illegal."
Would you rather live in a world where you and your significant other can get pregnant whenever you choose, but you only get to 'have a kid' if you can find some way to provide enough food to make the life sustainable?
Right, because you should be able to have a kid you cannot care for. Its amazing that people even think that's a remotely good idea, let alone a "right."
do you really want the government dictating the kids you can have? what if you get knocked up and go over the states limit? will they abort like china?
Given the rampant stupidity I'm seeing in this country today, I'm all for stelizing people as soon as they are born. Then, after you've proven your smart and can take care of yourself can the procedure be undone.
Personally I'm tired of paying for welfare moms just popping out more kids to get more welfare. Don't think the problems that bad? Goto MS, the politicions there actively encourage this promising more welfare money to get elected.
Until recently, I shared this exact opinion. However, I've changed my mind now and think that parties are absolutely fine, as long as they're kept under good scrutiny. The current entrenched parties are a *symptom* of the real problem - the electoral system.
Ahh, well thanks for pointing out the mistakes of the great thinkers that came up with our Constitution and tried to start a truely free society. Don't let the fact that they had the opposite views that political parties are wrong, and the electoral system is meant to act as a buffer between the people (who panic and will cut their own foot off if they think it will make them safer).
You pretty much need parties in national government. The elected need to have a full spectrum of policies, which is pretty difficult for independents to do. I don't agree with independent candidates standing on 1 local issue; that seems inappropriate for national government, and should be dealt with by local government.
No you don't. We functioned fine without them. The problem is that the feds have assumed way more authority than granted to them by the Constitution. I fail to see how political parties would help fix that problem, especially considering that's one of the reasons we have arrived at this point (the party spans local, state and federal government... no wonder the states have been losing power).
Given that you need a full spectrum of policies, parties make sense. People clump together to form their spectrum of policies. However, what you need to eliminate is people not being able to get SOME kind of representation, even if they're not in the majority. That's where the problem lies; first-past-the-post. It needs to be replaced with open-list proportional representation. Check out Finland and Israel for 2 good examples. A party system, but without the inherent evils that come with 2/3 party entrenchment.
Nope, parties just arbitrary divide people. People don't think about issues at all, they just vote republican or democrat without thinking. Remove parties, and now you will have to actually think about what the candidate is saying.
The electoral system and the way the Senate was supposed to be (represents the state governments, NOT THE PEOPLE), was DESIGNED to make sure the minority didn't get screwed.
But the combination of essentially only two distros focusing in a major (and successful) way on enterprise users - Red Hat and SUSE - and, on the other hand, Ubuntu becoming the major enthusiast distro by far, leads to a world in which we have basically 3 main distros: Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu.
Funny, I remember when it was RedHat, deb or slack. Then RedHat, knoppix, Mandriva. Then Redhat, Gentoo. So far it seems only RedHat is a constant, but others come and go.
Apparently its growing so far that each year since 2001 has been the 'Year of desktop Linux.' You fail to consider that Linux could be growing in spite of there being so many distros... that maybe it would be gaining much much more traction if there was only one or two.
Until that happens, JoeLinux may as well only exist for Joe and his nerd buddies; to complain about having "too many distributions" is (to me) kind of like complaining at having too many McDonalds (or whatever your preferred chain is). They are all similar. They all serve mostly the same food, with mostly the same flavour. So you should only need one or two, right?
/. analogy. First, McDonalds are identical, at least in the states. They have a menu that must be offered at all locations. Second, you need more than one location because they'd have a hard time in LA if their only location was in NYC. So each individual branch is not comparable to a Linux distro.
Yet another crap
If you were talking about fast food burger chains (McDs, Wendys, etc.) you may have a point.. but I notice that there aren't 300 national fast food chains burger too.
Back on topic, there may be only a few distros that a business would run, but for developers you now need to worry about 300 distros that your software might be run on if you're target is home users. So it is a problem; with Windows, basically if you target Win2k, you hit everyone because your app will run on Xp and Vista as well. However, since Xp is the most common, you don't really have to worry about targeting even 2000.
Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.
Or perhaps MS is respecting the licensing choice of developers, as it would like others to do.
Or perhaps both of us really don't know why MS is acting as it is, since neither of us know the people making the decisions or were in meetings regarding the actions.
The deals may stop, but then MS may begin actively sueing companies that distribute gpl3 software. Do you think it'd be good if Redhat's legal now tookup 110% of revenue?
I guess you miss my point; you don't need open source to see the side effects of the driver installation. This could have been discovered just as easily by someone running Tripwire after each install, whether the source was opened or closed has no bearing on how quickly this COULD have been discovered. There may be other cases that would back up your theory, but this is certainly not one of them.
I'd argue that open source isn't offering another station; because the source is open, a particular package may be implicitly trusted by the installer. As I pointed out with a comment on GCC, just because you have the source does not mean you are safe or can even be sure of what the compiled binary will do.