Not that I need to support my use of a word which has a perfectly clear and semantically correct meaning in this context, but if you need to appeal to "authority" here is verification.
Oh yes, it would be lovely if a company like Nokia did something for the sheer vituousness of it... but wishing that implies that it is something different to what they would have done anyway - i.e. it wasn't the best choice. Instead, they did it for commercial reasons which is wonderful stupendous happy news because it means that open source has been recognized as either (a) technically superior and (b) a commercial selling point large enough to capitalise on or (c) some combination of the both. Any of these rationales is simply great news. I don't want companies to say "well we don't really want to do something, but it's the right thing to do.". I want the distinction between right thing to do and the commercially advantageous thing to do to vanish. Because when it does, it shows that the consumer is thinking of what's best. And that's the thing that is necessary to bring about change.
it's not bad until you have someone else telling you what God wants.
That's the only way anyone has ever heard what god wants. Non-existent entities don't give orders.
No - many people have stated that they have personally felt spiritual guidance. Now this can be interpreted as God, Ganesha, Allah, The Universal Cosmic Consciousness, some part of the person's own subconscious or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Noodley Appendage brushing past you in the astral plane, but it doesn't lead to the widespread calamities that result from thousands obediently and unquestioningly following what someone else tells them is right or wrong. You say that it's the "only way that anyone hears what God wants?" No - there are two ways - self-interpretation and passing on responsibility to another. It's the latter that is so destructive, unless you're suggesting that masses of people will simultaneously get the same intuition toward something destructive without being told it by a politician, priest, economist, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cause of so much mayhem and misery in this world has been mostly religion/cult on religion/cult.
You're not wrong, but you're incomplete. The cause of so much mayhem and misery in this world has been mostly a minority of power-hungry people and a majority that prefers obedience to accepting responsibility for their own actions. That can be religion, but there are other excuses such as nationalism or political parties. It's fine to be spiritual - it's not bad until you have someone else telling you what God wants.
There's truth to what you say, but the oppression was still there. Do you remember the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon? Do you remember the Eric character (Cavalier)? He was deliberately done the way he was to reinforce the message that those who go their own way suffer and are better off following their leaders. There's an interview with one of the creators here where he talks about how he was forced to put this message in. If you don't want to read the whole article (though it's funny), just search for the phrase "parents groups".
There was a lot of colour and bright, blocky shapes in the eighties, but there was a large dose of "morality" and triumphalism mixed into a lot of it.
as well as removing all the advice that's currently around to chroot processes, if chroot isn't actually for security.
Well a good place to start would be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroot because one of the first things I did when this article came up was to double-check my understanding of chroot right there. FTFW:
This provides a convenient way to sandbox an untrusted, untested or otherwise dangerous program. It is also a simple kind of jail mechanism.
http://www.magnatune.com are another very good site. Their selection is mostly classical, electronica and foreign stuff (i.e. not much Amy Winehouse) but their service is excellent along with the very best quality FLAC files you could ask for, though of course there are high quality MP3s and Oggs for those that want them. Extensive try before you buy as well. Now if only there were a similar service in the UK for more mainstream music. The Amazon beta is US only, enforced by needing a US credit card.
It's backfiring on his host as well. Up until this morning, I had a lot of respect for Fasthosts which has always given me a good service. Now that respect has gone right down the pan if they're willing to help shut up people who criticise despots.
There's also a motivation for the graphics card companies to assist and help the community to develop the drivers. After all, good drivers are a selling to the card and a lack of support is a turn off. I see the future of this being not just opening of specs, but some work being done by the companies themselves under a free software license. It would help sell the cards, after all.
And for reference, I'm due to upgrade my system in a few months and I'll be getting an ATI card on principle.
Why does unbundling have to mean that you install and configure the O/S yourself? So long as the computer seller asks you "do you want Ubunutu or Vista, Madame?" then what's the problem?
Arguments about Windows "just working" fall apart if the manufacturer has a pre-configured image of the alternate O/S that they just stick on. Besides, since when has Windows "just worked" ? There's Firefox or Opera to install, there are nagging anti-virus programs to replace, the configuration of the automatic updates and the first three million to download since you bought your computer.
In such a case, it would make good sense for the US government (kicked by the US people if necessary) to say "maybe we shouldn't be hogging both ends of an enormous moon" and budge up a bit.
Really, the politics of scarcity have no place in the greater Solar system.
How can you separate "what authority is" from "how it is enforced" when even your own definition of authority refers to the "need to obey" ? That need to obey is a factor of the ability to enforce only, not any recognition of their to be a need to follow an instruction. The latter is more properly called co-operation.
The right of countries (which are themselves a concept only) to restrict people's activities in Space, extends only so far as to protect the people itself (and even then only so far as that means the people who comprise it, not a government's power as an organisation). To that extent, restricting launches can make safety sense, and despoilment of a resource for all (the moon) could be argued. But the belief that one segment of humanity has the inherent right to restrict individual's efforts outside the borders of their society is abhorrent. The idea of permits [i]may[/i] be based on the need for safety and preservation of a shared resource, but it smacks more of the idea that people are owned by their governments and require permission for everything. And indeed, activity beyond a society's border is indeed a violation of that idea - the individual or organisation declares by doing this, that their government is [i]not[/i] needed. That realisation being the greatest crime that a government can envisage, in my experience.
There's inappropriate flamebait mods all over the place at the moment. I think people's pejudices are on the upswing at the moment. Look at it this way - if everyone agrees with you, you must have said something very bland and useless.
What gets me is that according to TFS this guy is a world renowned super lawyer. Why is he suddenly (the company is three years old) director of a smallish video-software company based around a single (GPL-violating) company. It's almost like a set-up for an assault on the GPL. A sort of legal Kuwait. Or is that too paranoid?
With the greatest agreement that it was your cue to deride the original poster, fucktard would be a better word than 'fucktard.' There is no inherent property of the word fuck that must make it offensive. The fact that it is considered vulgar by some goes back to the Norman invasion of England when the language of the gentry became French and anyone who wanted to consider themselves upper class, spoke in that language. English words such as fuck and cunt became derided and were considered the language of the common masses. Indeed the word 'vulgar' is merely Latin for 'common.' It's simply a class thing. As the middle classes arose and put on airs and graces, they too started to condemn the language of the common man. Printed and written matter taking it's first steps amongst the middle and upper classes naturally led to such words being excluded from popular medium.
Those people who consider fuck to be a bad word, independent of any intent behind it, will not be fooled or mollified by a few wildcard symbols inserted in it. Those of us who do not consider the word to be bad (i.e. those whose language has not been corrupted by upper-class French sycophants) and therefore would not have been offended by the word, are now instructed to be offended by the emphasis placed on the word by the inclusion of the wildcard symbols, as their inclusion clearly signifies that regardless of our own opinions the intent is to be obscene. And we are more concerned by intent than we are by accident of form due to cultural background.
Now of course, you are free to write fucktard or f**ktard as you choose and I would not presume otherwise. But for the logical reasons in the previous paragraph, I believe that it would be better to write either fucktard itself, or some other words entirely, perhaps, 'oxygen thief' or other amusing term. It is disturbing that people's objection is to the fuck part of the compound word fucktard, when the latter part is clearly derived from retard, a clinical condition. But such are the vaguaries of word-prejudice.
That is a good question. But perhaps an equally useful one is why are so few artists choosing video games as their medium?
That question, of course, presupposes that they are not. For myself, I see video games as being less artistic because they do less to engage my higher faculties than a lot of other traditional art mediums. I apply the same heuristic in gauging the degree of artistic quality of a film. There may be video games that do provide such engagement. The general case is that they don't, I think, but not that they can't.
It's not the screwing up your life on drugs that we respect. It's the putting yourself back together again afterwards. If you had ever been at such a low point and with a serious drug problem, you would have the greatest respect for anyone who managed to not only get back on their feet but climb back up to the top. Well, that's one reason for respect. The other is a large dose of talent and some great songs.:)
We don't need to contemplate defense because we have more weapons per capita in the hands of civilians than any other country on earth and those who legally hold weapons tend to be better shots than your average soldier. This combined with the military infrastructure already in place means that any actual invasion of the US is just plain FUCKED.
Yep. It's a shame that the USA's rich are just going to sell the country, company by company, home by home, to other countries such as China and India. It's not so easy to fight economics with guns. The richest people of the USA seem to now be entirely freed of the bonds of nationality and are quite merrily taking the nation's capital abroad. US debt has skyrocketed since Bush came to power. The american people wont be conquered, they'll be sold. And the weapons wont be guns, they'll be downsizing, health insurance and home repossessions.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I need to support my use of a word which has a perfectly clear and semantically correct meaning in this context, but if you need to appeal to "authority" here is verification.
Numbskull.
Oh yes, it would be lovely if a company like Nokia did something for the sheer vituousness of it... but wishing that implies that it is something different to what they would have done anyway - i.e. it wasn't the best choice. Instead, they did it for commercial reasons which is wonderful stupendous happy news because it means that open source has been recognized as either (a) technically superior and (b) a commercial selling point large enough to capitalise on or (c) some combination of the both. Any of these rationales is simply great news. I don't want companies to say "well we don't really want to do something, but it's the right thing to do.". I want the distinction between right thing to do and the commercially advantageous thing to do to vanish. Because when it does, it shows that the consumer is thinking of what's best. And that's the thing that is necessary to bring about change.
Open source is a selling point! Fantastic!
s/bit/lot
There, fixed.
You're not wrong, but you're incomplete. The cause of so much mayhem and misery in this world has been mostly a minority of power-hungry people and a majority that prefers obedience to accepting responsibility for their own actions. That can be religion, but there are other excuses such as nationalism or political parties. It's fine to be spiritual - it's not bad until you have someone else telling you what God wants.
There's truth to what you say, but the oppression was still there. Do you remember the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon? Do you remember the Eric character (Cavalier)? He was deliberately done the way he was to reinforce the message that those who go their own way suffer and are better off following their leaders. There's an interview with one of the creators here where he talks about how he was forced to put this message in. If you don't want to read the whole article (though it's funny), just search for the phrase "parents groups".
There was a lot of colour and bright, blocky shapes in the eighties, but there was a large dose of "morality" and triumphalism mixed into a lot of it.
Oh, you just think they dropped Duke Nukem Forever!
Well a good place to start would be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroot because one of the first things I did when this article came up was to double-check my understanding of chroot right there. FTFW:
http://www.magnatune.com are another very good site. Their selection is mostly classical, electronica and foreign stuff (i.e. not much Amy Winehouse) but their service is excellent along with the very best quality FLAC files you could ask for, though of course there are high quality MP3s and Oggs for those that want them. Extensive try before you buy as well. Now if only there were a similar service in the UK for more mainstream music. The Amazon beta is US only, enforced by needing a US credit card.
It's backfiring on his host as well. Up until this morning, I had a lot of respect for Fasthosts which has always given me a good service. Now that respect has gone right down the pan if they're willing to help shut up people who criticise despots.
There's also a motivation for the graphics card companies to assist and help the community to develop the drivers. After all, good drivers are a selling to the card and a lack of support is a turn off. I see the future of this being not just opening of specs, but some work being done by the companies themselves under a free software license. It would help sell the cards, after all.
And for reference, I'm due to upgrade my system in a few months and I'll be getting an ATI card on principle.
Why does unbundling have to mean that you install and configure the O/S yourself? So long as the computer seller asks you "do you want Ubunutu or Vista, Madame?" then what's the problem?
Arguments about Windows "just working" fall apart if the manufacturer has a pre-configured image of the alternate O/S that they just stick on. Besides, since when has Windows "just worked" ? There's Firefox or Opera to install, there are nagging anti-virus programs to replace, the configuration of the automatic updates and the first three million to download since you bought your computer.
In such a case, it would make good sense for the US government (kicked by the US people if necessary) to say "maybe we shouldn't be hogging both ends of an enormous moon" and budge up a bit.
Really, the politics of scarcity have no place in the greater Solar system.
You invent the technology, they'll invent the permits.
How can you separate "what authority is" from "how it is enforced" when even your own definition of authority refers to the "need to obey" ? That need to obey is a factor of the ability to enforce only, not any recognition of their to be a need to follow an instruction. The latter is more properly called co-operation.
The right of countries (which are themselves a concept only) to restrict people's activities in Space, extends only so far as to protect the people itself (and even then only so far as that means the people who comprise it, not a government's power as an organisation). To that extent, restricting launches can make safety sense, and despoilment of a resource for all (the moon) could be argued. But the belief that one segment of humanity has the inherent right to restrict individual's efforts outside the borders of their society is abhorrent. The idea of permits [i]may[/i] be based on the need for safety and preservation of a shared resource, but it smacks more of the idea that people are owned by their governments and require permission for everything. And indeed, activity beyond a society's border is indeed a violation of that idea - the individual or organisation declares by doing this, that their government is [i]not[/i] needed. That realisation being the greatest crime that a government can envisage, in my experience.
The definition of authority here being a greater ability to shoot you down than you have to defend yourself.
There's inappropriate flamebait mods all over the place at the moment. I think people's pejudices are on the upswing at the moment. Look at it this way - if everyone agrees with you, you must have said something very bland and useless.
What gets me is that according to TFS this guy is a world renowned super lawyer. Why is he suddenly (the company is three years old) director of a smallish video-software company based around a single (GPL-violating) company. It's almost like a set-up for an assault on the GPL. A sort of legal Kuwait. Or is that too paranoid?
With the greatest agreement that it was your cue to deride the original poster, fucktard would be a better word than 'fucktard.' There is no inherent property of the word fuck that must make it offensive. The fact that it is considered vulgar by some goes back to the Norman invasion of England when the language of the gentry became French and anyone who wanted to consider themselves upper class, spoke in that language. English words such as fuck and cunt became derided and were considered the language of the common masses. Indeed the word 'vulgar' is merely Latin for 'common.' It's simply a class thing. As the middle classes arose and put on airs and graces, they too started to condemn the language of the common man. Printed and written matter taking it's first steps amongst the middle and upper classes naturally led to such words being excluded from popular medium.
Those people who consider fuck to be a bad word, independent of any intent behind it, will not be fooled or mollified by a few wildcard symbols inserted in it. Those of us who do not consider the word to be bad (i.e. those whose language has not been corrupted by upper-class French sycophants) and therefore would not have been offended by the word, are now instructed to be offended by the emphasis placed on the word by the inclusion of the wildcard symbols, as their inclusion clearly signifies that regardless of our own opinions the intent is to be obscene. And we are more concerned by intent than we are by accident of form due to cultural background.
Now of course, you are free to write fucktard or f**ktard as you choose and I would not presume otherwise. But for the logical reasons in the previous paragraph, I believe that it would be better to write either fucktard itself, or some other words entirely, perhaps, 'oxygen thief' or other amusing term. It is disturbing that people's objection is to the fuck part of the compound word fucktard, when the latter part is clearly derived from retard, a clinical condition. But such are the vaguaries of word-prejudice.
-H.
Alternately, prepare for latex clad women with eight foot tongues accompanied by mutated french poodles.
Yes - someone saw that movie.
That is a good question. But perhaps an equally useful one is why are so few artists choosing video games as their medium?
That question, of course, presupposes that they are not. For myself, I see video games as being less artistic because they do less to engage my higher faculties than a lot of other traditional art mediums. I apply the same heuristic in gauging the degree of artistic quality of a film. There may be video games that do provide such engagement. The general case is that they don't, I think, but not that they can't.
It's not the screwing up your life on drugs that we respect. It's the putting yourself back together again afterwards. If you had ever been at such a low point and with a serious drug problem, you would have the greatest respect for anyone who managed to not only get back on their feet but climb back up to the top. Well, that's one reason for respect. The other is a large dose of talent and some great songs.
Now I'd pay money to steal that!
Yep. It's a shame that the USA's rich are just going to sell the country, company by company, home by home, to other countries such as China and India. It's not so easy to fight economics with guns. The richest people of the USA seem to now be entirely freed of the bonds of nationality and are quite merrily taking the nation's capital abroad. US debt has skyrocketed since Bush came to power. The american people wont be conquered, they'll be sold. And the weapons wont be guns, they'll be downsizing, health insurance and home repossessions.