And then we won't be able to afford all those nifty tanks, fighters, bombs, and aircraft carriers.
Most of those nifty aircraft carriers and such will last for 50 years. That's a long time.
At some point, foreign nations will stop pouring money into the US.
Only if we stop paying them. And it's been a long long time since the U.S. couldn't pay those debts back on time. Come hell or high water ( more likely high taxes, and cutting social spending ) those notes will be payed back in time.
Right now, foreign nations are buying our treasury notes.
Americans are also buying those notes.
That's money flowing out of the country that we'll never see again.
Not true, most of the money spent on imports are imports from large multinational corporations that are heavily based in the U.S. and alot of that money is in fact flowing right back into jobs and the sort.
The US will become a third-world country if we choose to support outsourcing. Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Write your congressional representatives. Question the leadership of the companies that you own shares in. Don't accept the destruction of our country to make the rich richer.
Nope, we have too much military superiority to do a thing like that. Look through history and find a "third-world" country with complete military superiority.
Additionally OO.o lacks some of the features of excel, (excel plotted and did histograms and best fit lines, where as OO.o has a rather poor grapher which only does bar graphs, line graphs, really horrendous xy plots, and pie charts.) this can be remedied, however, with some macros. Search OO.o macros for statistics.
It doesn't imply that at all. Google isn't preventing people from posting images on the internet. It is simply not displaying them. Those are not the same things.
Here's an analogy. An art gallery displays art work that it will sell, and the money will go to the artist. An artist has a picture that the art gallery deems offensive. The gallery decides not to display it. There is nothing wrong there. The artist is not denied his free speech or artistic beliefs.
Of course, but don't equate your definition of bloated to bad. Gnome is bloated, I suppose, but it works very well and is much more pleasant and easy to use than many lighter alternatives (fluxbox and the what-have-yous.)
First, you have no proof God doesn't exist. You claiming God doesn't exist is as much based in faith as claims that God does exist. You claiming that is for the advancement of the species may be based on things such as religion leading to wars and fun things like that, which is an entirely different conversation. I'm not giving you grief for not following "some mythical god," I suppose I am giving you grief for giving people grief about following myth or god.
And now, for your quote in more detail!
Belief without evidence: true, by definition... Ok, that's fine.
in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge,: Hint: the priest is just repeating what's in the book... Really? Maybe you should check out what priests say and what's in the books (Hint: they are different!) And are you going to tell me that priests have no knowledge of belief in God?
What, is there another universe you can point me to? This may be you misunderstanding the quote. God is without parallel because there is nothing that we know of that is anything like it. How does this have anything to do with the Universe?
Furthermore, Deists and Atheists are very similar, except that Deists believe that some supernatural force began the Universe. Oh, and Deists were part of the Enlightenment where as Atheists were part of Modernism (Existentiallism) and post-modernism (Nihilism)
"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Even the very faithful must concede on each individual point. By contrast, the "definitions" you give are simply false.
Really? There are very very few faithful that will say they listen to the word of someone without knowledge on the subject. That one section is the one that makes the remark negative. "FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in that which is without parallel." That is a very different tone in that statement.
The majority of atheists are happy to sit back and not stir up a ruckus.
Really? Explain your grandparent's sig. I don't see a lot of god sigs around here.
Love your sig! It's so self-important! It's as if it's defining something to simply make a cut at it. E.G. "Atheist: A person too stupid to realize the practicality of religion" or "Atheism: A stupid version of deism." or "Atheist: A person that likes to be vocal about his lack of belief because he thinks its cool." or "Atheist: A person living in a constant state of hypocrisy by critisizing religious zeal while displaying equal zeal in the opposite direction."
Joe User doesn't notice the shit that Windows gives them because they think it's normal. They would KNOW that DRM isn't normal. The alternative would likely be Apple, not Linux, at this point. This is why, I believe, that Windows will get to an unacceptable point of intrusiveness, and finally will be forced to tone it down.
does not the baby have the right to life and by killing it you are infringing upon those rights?
Do people have the right not to procreate, then? Does the baby have the right to life before conception? Of course not, because the baby isn't it's own entity at that point. While a woman is pregnant, it's a part of that woman's body. She should have control over her own body, shouldn't she?
Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a "trusted" computer.
There could also be a free internet or free media. Why not? Yeah, it's paranoid, yeah it's probably unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.
What? You just said it was unlikely, then you said it was the way were heading.
Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.
Maybe eventually doesn't matter in the minds of the public. What do they care if it is patented or non-free? By the time they'd have to pay, they'd already be reliant on it. It's a genius system IF it happened.
The people that will be setting up Sender ID will be the server, not the "masses." Those people will accept the relatively low cost of setting it up (license is free as in beer, no?)
open standards (truely open) and protocols will win over closed source solutions.
Some examples, please? Ogg over mp3?
the reason is simple...the desires of the many will trump those of the few or only. so the majority will move on to the open technologies.
Speaking of logic not flowing, what does even mean? How are the desires of the many related to Open Standards? How are Closed Standards only few? You failed to make that connection there.
Keep this trend goign long enough, of lowest cost manufacturing, lowest cost labour.
This is why a government needs to exist to keep such a thing from happening. The economy needs to be nurtured. Capitalism hasn't existed in it's pure form for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
And in reverse order,
And then we won't be able to afford all those nifty tanks, fighters, bombs, and aircraft carriers.
Most of those nifty aircraft carriers and such will last for 50 years. That's a long time.
At some point, foreign nations will stop pouring money into the US.
Only if we stop paying them. And it's been a long long time since the U.S. couldn't pay those debts back on time. Come hell or high water ( more likely high taxes, and cutting social spending ) those notes will be payed back in time.
Right now, foreign nations are buying our treasury notes.
Americans are also buying those notes.
That's money flowing out of the country that we'll never see again.
Not true, most of the money spent on imports are imports from large multinational corporations that are heavily based in the U.S. and alot of that money is in fact flowing right back into jobs and the sort.
The US will become a third-world country if we choose to support outsourcing. Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Write your congressional representatives. Question the leadership of the companies that you own shares in. Don't accept the destruction of our country to make the rich richer.
Nope, we have too much military superiority to do a thing like that. Look through history and find a "third-world" country with complete military superiority.
Sorry if this sounds blunt, but Japan did quite a bit of damage to the Chinese in the 1930's.
Additionally OO.o lacks some of the features of excel, (excel plotted and did histograms and best fit lines, where as OO.o has a rather poor grapher which only does bar graphs, line graphs, really horrendous xy plots, and pie charts.) this can be remedied, however, with some macros. Search OO.o macros for statistics.
It doesn't imply that at all. Google isn't preventing people from posting images on the internet. It is simply not displaying them. Those are not the same things.
Here's an analogy. An art gallery displays art work that it will sell, and the money will go to the artist. An artist has a picture that the art gallery deems offensive. The gallery decides not to display it. There is nothing wrong there. The artist is not denied his free speech or artistic beliefs.
I like how the website links Google to the Bush Administration through an investment company. Very clever!
Of course, but don't equate your definition of bloated to bad. Gnome is bloated, I suppose, but it works very well and is much more pleasant and easy to use than many lighter alternatives (fluxbox and the what-have-yous.)
Napoleon was French
Wrong! He was a Corsican. The French only win wars if they are led by a foreigner.
Horrible analogy.
The patch set up the firewall by default. That's what it did to "break" those programs. Can you seriously say that Joe User doesn't benefit from this?
First, you have no proof God doesn't exist. You claiming God doesn't exist is as much based in faith as claims that God does exist. You claiming that is for the advancement of the species may be based on things such as religion leading to wars and fun things like that, which is an entirely different conversation. I'm not giving you grief for not following "some mythical god," I suppose I am giving you grief for giving people grief about following myth or god.
And now, for your quote in more detail!
Belief without evidence: true, by definition... Ok, that's fine.
in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge,: Hint: the priest is just repeating what's in the book... Really? Maybe you should check out what priests say and what's in the books (Hint: they are different!) And are you going to tell me that priests have no knowledge of belief in God?
What, is there another universe you can point me to? This may be you misunderstanding the quote. God is without parallel because there is nothing that we know of that is anything like it. How does this have anything to do with the Universe?
Furthermore, Deists and Atheists are very similar, except that Deists believe that some supernatural force began the Universe. Oh, and Deists were part of the Enlightenment where as Atheists were part of Modernism (Existentiallism) and post-modernism (Nihilism)
"FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Even the very faithful must concede on each individual point. By contrast, the "definitions" you give are simply false.
Really? There are very very few faithful that will say they listen to the word of someone without knowledge on the subject. That one section is the one that makes the remark negative. "FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in that which is without parallel." That is a very different tone in that statement.
The majority of atheists are happy to sit back and not stir up a ruckus.
Really? Explain your grandparent's sig. I don't see a lot of god sigs around here.
Love your sig! It's so self-important! It's as if it's defining something to simply make a cut at it. E.G. "Atheist: A person too stupid to realize the practicality of religion" or "Atheism: A stupid version of deism." or "Atheist: A person that likes to be vocal about his lack of belief because he thinks its cool." or "Atheist: A person living in a constant state of hypocrisy by critisizing religious zeal while displaying equal zeal in the opposite direction."
So the core of your argument is this:
Person A: Hey, I don't like the way X and Y work, why can't they work like Z
Person B: Do it yourself or stop complaining
They also didn't let people vote. Which of these "excellent reasons" are still applicable today?
Joe User doesn't notice the shit that Windows gives them because they think it's normal. They would KNOW that DRM isn't normal. The alternative would likely be Apple, not Linux, at this point. This is why, I believe, that Windows will get to an unacceptable point of intrusiveness, and finally will be forced to tone it down.
does not the baby have the right to life and by killing it you are infringing upon those rights?
Do people have the right not to procreate, then? Does the baby have the right to life before conception? Of course not, because the baby isn't it's own entity at that point. While a woman is pregnant, it's a part of that woman's body. She should have control over her own body, shouldn't she?
Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a "trusted" computer.
There could also be a free internet or free media. Why not?
Yeah, it's paranoid, yeah it's probably unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.
What? You just said it was unlikely, then you said it was the way were heading.
Regardless, you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this? It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed. It'll happen, and the public will through a huge shit fit.
Wasn't Einstein Jewish? Did't he believe in God?
There is a distinct difference between a non-practicing Jewish scientist and a Christian leader that believes he rules by the word of God.
How does Microsoft make money off of Internet Explorer? They don't. But, if it wasn't included in the OS, people would go ape-shit.
Maybe eventually doesn't matter in the minds of the public. What do they care if it is patented or non-free? By the time they'd have to pay, they'd already be reliant on it. It's a genius system IF it happened.
The people that will be setting up Sender ID will be the server, not the "masses." Those people will accept the relatively low cost of setting it up (license is free as in beer, no?)
open standards (truely open) and protocols will win over closed source solutions.
Some examples, please? Ogg over mp3?
the reason is simple...the desires of the many will trump those of the few or only. so the majority will move on to the open technologies.
Speaking of logic not flowing, what does even mean? How are the desires of the many related to Open Standards? How are Closed Standards only few? You failed to make that connection there.
He didn'y say anything about being Pro Kerry. He simply hates George W. Bush and his policies. What's wrong with that?
Keep this trend goign long enough, of lowest cost manufacturing, lowest cost labour.
This is why a government needs to exist to keep such a thing from happening. The economy needs to be nurtured. Capitalism hasn't existed in it's pure form for a while.