.after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...
Where 60.7% voted in 2004, and 50% of those elect a president. 30% of your population picks your leader.
And it's always a two party race. Do I vote far to the right, or right of center? No sense in voting center or a little left leaning, because they don't stand a chance.
Make no mistake, the US is a plutocracy now, more than a democracy. It's about who donates to an election campaign, not just the voters now.
What Firefox does isn't abusing what may be considered a monopoly power.
Although it can be argued that Google is a market force in the search market the same way Microsoft is a dominant force in the Desktop OS market. Sure there's Linux, and maybe a few SkyOS or whatever BeOS is called nowadays, the same way there's yahoo search or askjeeves or msn search compared to google.
I like google, but in this case they are wrong. They've benefited from the a similar marriage that they are wanting to stop.
Shouldn't microsoft cry foul over Firefox defaulting to Google then?
Turnaround is fair play IMO.
Where was google crying for fairness when their special agreement with Firefox to make google search the default home page and the default search engine?
ANYONE who claims more than months or even weeks uptime in XP isn't applying patches!
And anyone who claims the same in Linux is doing the same; not applying kernel updates.
And let's face it, the kernel updates in Linux are a bitch. Every time there's an update, you have to recompile your kernel modules. (ndiswrapper or madwifi, etc)
but in the US we've now established quite clearly that the government intends to abuse the populace and the common good, hence the constant and rapid erosion of the civil liberties of its citizens.
The McCarthy era is a prime example of how bad things can get - from state sanctioned censorship to people accusing people of being communists.
And the Dubya era of randomly imprisoning people without due process, and unlawful, unconstitutional wire taps is also a sign of the same erosion.
Some where between the voters and the government exists a discourse. So much for the notion of responsible government.
To tell you the truth, here in Canada we were really, really surprised to see you guys re-elect dubya. The dude's really got no respect for anything in the US Constitution.
Just isn't true. Both outlook & IE would never have reached the penetration they have without being included in the default install of 95% of desktop computers sold.
Excuse me, but I hate to be pedantic but Outlook was not on a default install on 95% of the desktop computers sold, Outlook Express was, and there is a HUGE difference.
No, but, the analogy of intruding on others rights by subjecting them to annoying smoke or screaming out of control kids is a valid one.
Our genetic make up gives us the drive to want to have children. We are born with the tools to make children. We are not born with rolling papers and a bag of tobacco in our hands.
Having children is a life-defining act.
Smoking is a self desecrating act. (I used to smoke btw).
A better analogy would be a table of grown men at a restaurant cussing. If a table full of adults is cussing while my child is in the restaurant, I have the right to ask them to tone down their language and be considerate, but the fact of the matter is I don't have the right to demand they tone down their language.
And in all actuallity, most parents will pack up their child and leave if they can't handle it.
Ergo so should you leave too if you can't handle a crying baby.
Personally, in restaurants...we have smoking and non-smoking sections. I think we now need to have Children and NON-Children sections of the place.
STOP
You are guilty of false analogy.
Smoking - a choice one makes that infringes on the health and well-being of others.
Children - something people do because it's part of our biological makeup. We have child-making parts, and we use those child-making parts to make children. It's part of our biological definition, and our perpetuity on this planet depends on it.
Children cry, scream, laugh, and play. That's what defines them as children. You did the same thing as a child.
Everone was once a child. Not everyone was once a smoker.
You do not have a right to impinge on MY rights to enjoy a quiet meal, or be out in public without your sceaming, annoying, undisciplined offspring YOU chose to have.
Since when was it a right to enjoy a quiet meal? The only place you have that right is in your own home. The moment you step out of your house, you have as much right to a quiet meal as I a right to a meal with my wife and noisy, mis-behaving children.
Considering we are genetically encoded to have children, and our need to propogate the species is part of our physiological make up, I'd say it's YOU who is infringing on my rights to take my children out because it's YOU who cannot handle children in the real world.
I have two boys who are now 14 and 16 and they were well behaved in stores. Yes, they did not behave 100% of the time and I had to take them out of the store on a few rare occasions. Neither of my sons ever had a "temper tantrum" in any store.
If parents were perfect at raising their children, we would have no need psychiatrists trying to blame parents all the time:)
Truth is, you don't know why the child is throwing a tantrum. Perhaps the dad deserted his family and the mom was stuck raising four kids by herself and can't be as attentive to one child's needs as she'd like to be, or whatever bazillion other reasons you can find. Situations differe from family to family, and it's wrong to pass judgement.
Truth is though, some kids throw temper tantrums because they work, and it's the parent's fault they throw them. Sometimes it's the kid acting out for other reasons. Single moms / dads have it tough.
Damn, must people take little kids EVERYWHERE nowadays?
Yes. Where a parent chooses to take their children is none of your business. If you don't like it, don't go out. It's my right, as a parent, to take my annoying, screaming child wherever I please and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.
That said, after baby is born, I'll be considerate enough to deal with my child when it has a fit but that's another story.
Hint: if your kid isn't well behaved or routinely cries in stores; leave him at home. On a busy weekend, the last person that a salesperson is going to offer to help is the guy holding a crying brat.
Hint: Until you have children of your own that behave perfectly 100% of the time, you don't deserve the right to comment and criticize. You really should be modded troll for that comment.
And with 100% certainty, I'll point out that no child behaves perfectly 100% of the time, and you do not know when a temper tantrum will strike.
Home Deopot/Lowes employees are just as bad as best buy employees. That's a hasty generalization, and a very incorrect one.
I was doing some plumbing in my basement, and the dude in the plumbing department was a licenced plumber who was on disability. That doesn't make him incompetent. He was quite helpful, and didn't demean me in any way when I asked him really dumb questions. There are quite a few people who work at Home Depot who are either retired and bored, or are unable to work in a trade any more.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets.
True that disclosing trade secrets can cause financial damages, although I fail to see how much financial damage Apple really suffered. These products were up and coming press releases anyway.
However I'd argue that thinksecret benefited Apple more than they harmed Apple. They added to the hype about Apple's coming products, and I'd argue more people payed attention to see if thinksecret's leaks were true or not.
Of course, judges can sometimes be real idiots and rule incorrectly.
Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequence, even if you are a journalist.
To a certain extent. Slander, for example, is not protected, although to sue, you need to proove damages.
Incidentally, how much damage did Apple really suffer? Their lawsuit is frivolous; they suffered little or no damage from the publishing of the leaks, and perhaps even benefited from them. The information would have been released at a later date anyway.
Just so you know, 100 tables isn't that large of a database.
Furthermore, you also have views, stored procs, triggers, foreign keys, etc.
Yes GUIs are nice, but unnecessary on the server. Should I need a gui to install Oracle, I'll be switching to DB2 TYVM. I will never install CDE or X on a DB server.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the acting from Ronald Regan was about the quality of some porn stars though hehe... ^_^
.after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...
Where 60.7% voted in 2004, and 50% of those elect a president. 30% of your population picks your leader.
And it's always a two party race. Do I vote far to the right, or right of center? No sense in voting center or a little left leaning, because they don't stand a chance.
Make no mistake, the US is a plutocracy now, more than a democracy. It's about who donates to an election campaign, not just the voters now.
Actually, I'm with you on that. Blocking third party javascript includes would be super great, and it would solve a great deal of security issues.
Let's not forget about James Earl Jones. He's done pretty well too.
And I personally think Mark Hamill kicked ass as cockknocker in Jay and Silent Bob...
Billy Dee Williams didn't do too bad after his role as Lando either...
What Firefox does isn't abusing what may be considered a monopoly power.
Although it can be argued that Google is a market force in the search market the same way Microsoft is a dominant force in the Desktop OS market. Sure there's Linux, and maybe a few SkyOS or whatever BeOS is called nowadays, the same way there's yahoo search or askjeeves or msn search compared to google.
I like google, but in this case they are wrong. They've benefited from the a similar marriage that they are wanting to stop.
Shouldn't microsoft cry foul over Firefox defaulting to Google then?
Turnaround is fair play IMO.
Where was google crying for fairness when their special agreement with Firefox to make google search the default home page and the default search engine?
A news organization's purpose is to inform, not to proffer an opinion.
According to who? Since when is an editorial inform without an opinion?
Truth is, a news organization is to present information about current affairs, including editorials and opinions.
(my best current uptime on a system I manage is 125 days though)
/. would scream bloody murder.
I had over 400 days of uptime on my FreeBSD 4.9 box and then we had a power outage. Damn thing is unbreakable... It's still running 4.9...
Still, I find it irritating that I need to redeploy kernel modules. IMO that's a failing in Linux.
Imagine if Windows applied a patch, and you had to reinstall drivers. People in
ANYONE who claims more than months or even weeks uptime in XP isn't applying patches!
And anyone who claims the same in Linux is doing the same; not applying kernel updates.
And let's face it, the kernel updates in Linux are a bitch. Every time there's an update, you have to recompile your kernel modules. (ndiswrapper or madwifi, etc)
but in the US we've now established quite clearly that the government intends to abuse the populace and the common good, hence the constant and rapid erosion of the civil liberties of its citizens.
The McCarthy era is a prime example of how bad things can get - from state sanctioned censorship to people accusing people of being communists.
And the Dubya era of randomly imprisoning people without due process, and unlawful, unconstitutional wire taps is also a sign of the same erosion.
Some where between the voters and the government exists a discourse. So much for the notion of responsible government.
To tell you the truth, here in Canada we were really, really surprised to see you guys re-elect dubya. The dude's really got no respect for anything in the US Constitution.
But I think the idea is to give it more of a Web 2.0 feel or something.
:)
Web 2.0??? You MUST be a sales person or something. No way a tech would use a horrible buzzword like that
I love /. -> arguments come in the form of the passive voice:
the fact that there is a web interface convention of text links being blue and underlined.
Dude where is the convention? And moreso, if it's a standard then you wouldn't be able to change it to whatever suits your fancy.
Text links should be underlined. That's the convention.
I can configure that to whatever I like in my browser. There's no convention. That's YOUR convention, but not necessarily mine.
Just isn't true. Both outlook & IE would never have reached the penetration they have without being included in the default install of 95% of desktop computers sold.
Excuse me, but I hate to be pedantic but Outlook was not on a default install on 95% of the desktop computers sold, Outlook Express was, and there is a HUGE difference.
Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place?
Where were those Americans when Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, and the DMCA were brought in???
All they have to do is tack on some bullshit name to it like the Good American Act, and the sheeples will fall for it...
After all, it's the terrorists who are the enemy right? The US Government is your friend no?
No, but, the analogy of intruding on others rights by subjecting them to annoying smoke or screaming out of control kids is a valid one.
Our genetic make up gives us the drive to want to have children. We are born with the tools to make children. We are not born with rolling papers and a bag of tobacco in our hands.
Having children is a life-defining act.
Smoking is a self desecrating act. (I used to smoke btw).
A better analogy would be a table of grown men at a restaurant cussing. If a table full of adults is cussing while my child is in the restaurant, I have the right to ask them to tone down their language and be considerate, but the fact of the matter is I don't have the right to demand they tone down their language.
And in all actuallity, most parents will pack up their child and leave if they can't handle it.
Ergo so should you leave too if you can't handle a crying baby.
Personally, in restaurants...we have smoking and non-smoking sections. I think we now need to have Children and NON-Children sections of the place.
STOP
You are guilty of false analogy.
Smoking - a choice one makes that infringes on the health and well-being of others.
Children - something people do because it's part of our biological makeup. We have child-making parts, and we use those child-making parts to make children. It's part of our biological definition, and our perpetuity on this planet depends on it.
Children cry, scream, laugh, and play. That's what defines them as children. You did the same thing as a child.
Everone was once a child. Not everyone was once a smoker.
Big difference.
You do not have a right to impinge on MY rights to enjoy a quiet meal, or be out in public without your sceaming, annoying, undisciplined offspring YOU chose to have.
Since when was it a right to enjoy a quiet meal? The only place you have that right is in your own home. The moment you step out of your house, you have as much right to a quiet meal as I a right to a meal with my wife and noisy, mis-behaving children.
Considering we are genetically encoded to have children, and our need to propogate the species is part of our physiological make up, I'd say it's YOU who is infringing on my rights to take my children out because it's YOU who cannot handle children in the real world.
Recall you were once a child too.
I have two boys who are now 14 and 16 and they were well behaved in stores. Yes, they did not behave 100% of the time and I had to take them out of the store on a few rare occasions. Neither of my sons ever had a "temper tantrum" in any store.
:)
If parents were perfect at raising their children, we would have no need psychiatrists trying to blame parents all the time
Truth is, you don't know why the child is throwing a tantrum. Perhaps the dad deserted his family and the mom was stuck raising four kids by herself and can't be as attentive to one child's needs as she'd like to be, or whatever bazillion other reasons you can find. Situations differe from family to family, and it's wrong to pass judgement.
Truth is though, some kids throw temper tantrums because they work, and it's the parent's fault they throw them. Sometimes it's the kid acting out for other reasons. Single moms / dads have it tough.
Damn, must people take little kids EVERYWHERE nowadays?
Yes. Where a parent chooses to take their children is none of your business. If you don't like it, don't go out. It's my right, as a parent, to take my annoying, screaming child wherever I please and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.
That said, after baby is born, I'll be considerate enough to deal with my child when it has a fit but that's another story.
Hint: if your kid isn't well behaved or routinely cries in stores; leave him at home. On a busy weekend, the last person that a salesperson is going to offer to help is the guy holding a crying brat.
Hint: Until you have children of your own that behave perfectly 100% of the time, you don't deserve the right to comment and criticize. You really should be modded troll for that comment.
And with 100% certainty, I'll point out that no child behaves perfectly 100% of the time, and you do not know when a temper tantrum will strike.
Home Deopot/Lowes employees are just as bad as best buy employees.
That's a hasty generalization, and a very incorrect one.
I was doing some plumbing in my basement, and the dude in the plumbing department was a licenced plumber who was on disability. That doesn't make him incompetent. He was quite helpful, and didn't demean me in any way when I asked him really dumb questions. There are quite a few people who work at Home Depot who are either retired and bored, or are unable to work in a trade any more.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets.
True that disclosing trade secrets can cause financial damages, although I fail to see how much financial damage Apple really suffered. These products were up and coming press releases anyway.
However I'd argue that thinksecret benefited Apple more than they harmed Apple. They added to the hype about Apple's coming products, and I'd argue more people payed attention to see if thinksecret's leaks were true or not.
Of course, judges can sometimes be real idiots and rule incorrectly.
Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequence, even if you are a journalist.
To a certain extent. Slander, for example, is not protected, although to sue, you need to proove damages.
Incidentally, how much damage did Apple really suffer? Their lawsuit is frivolous; they suffered little or no damage from the publishing of the leaks, and perhaps even benefited from them. The information would have been released at a later date anyway.
Just so you know, 100 tables isn't that large of a database.
Furthermore, you also have views, stored procs, triggers, foreign keys, etc.
Yes GUIs are nice, but unnecessary on the server. Should I need a gui to install Oracle, I'll be switching to DB2 TYVM. I will never install CDE or X on a DB server.