Military Policy
Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect.
Clearly, a tank rolling down an American street would qualify as undermining the liberty of our citizens.
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.
WE are the market, WE are the ultimate defenders of our own lives.
I think it's sad that you feel like we are better off with a maternal government. What does that say about how you feel about yourself and your fellow man?
This was probably my biggest frustration when I was first trying to learn *NIX. I kept insisting to my guru that there had to be a command summary somewhere that I could use to jumpstart my learning. He finally said "Dude, just do 'ls/bin'."
The whole 'team' word is over used, and in my mind, reeks of management-itis.
Well said. A team knows they are a team, and doesn't need you sticking it in their faces all the time. A bunch of fuckoffs who aren't a team aren't going to become a team because you keep calling them team.
And especially, never, EVER use "team" to try to soften a statement that parses down to "you're getting fucked." It doesn't make it easier; it just makes you look like a tool.
There is a difference between a Democrat and a liberal.
There is also, in my opinion, a difference between a "liberal" and a liberal. There are two senses of the word, supporting freedom, and generous. Contemporary "liberals" tend to focus on being generous . . . with other people's money.
I don't think they correct the use of noncommercial for non-proprietary because they think that Free Software can be sold the way propritary software is, in direct contridiction of what they say. I think that they make this correction because they belive that this misuse of the word noncommercial creates the impression that it is not suitable for commerical use, or not licensed for commerical use.
I'll put Big Dan* up against your S&W for the hand-cannon award any day.:-)
It will be the last blued piece I own. My taste is revolvers only for defense. Autos are fun to shoot, but I've never seen a wheel gun stovepipe;-)
I'm enjoying having out own, private conversation on Slashdot.
-Peter
* This one looks identical to mine except mine has 1. no scope 2. a red insert in the front sight and 3. A nice new set of Hogue's I got for my birthday. Haven't shot the new Hogue's yet . . .
I try not to think out that far, though I do think that it is worthwhile to not use black talons for the reason you cite. I think that one could harp on the stopping (as opposed to killing) power of hydra-shoks, and sell the safety factor of reliable expansion vs. over-penetration.
This works out nicely, since they are the actual reasons I use them.
Incidentally, I don't have a.357 any more, just a.44 magnum (a Dan Wesson that I affectionately refer to as "Big Dan"). When I do get my carry rig it will probably be one of these babies loaded with these. If I miss ya', I'll still burn the shit out of ya'.
I seem to have a thing for guns that are no fun to shoot . ..
You're making erroneous assumptions, but don't feel bad, because GNU makes the same ones. The first bad assumption is that the reality follows theory. The second is that you're selling software.
You are flatly wrong. Please read what the FSF actually says on the topic before you comment on what they think again.
Here are some things that the FSF actually says on the topic (emphasis in italics is mine):
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or
can.
With free software, users
don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software.
You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the
marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
I don't think that the FSF suffers under any illusions about being able to sell Free Software in the way that commercial software is sold.
However, when people think of ``selling software'', they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free.
So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term ``selling software'' and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say ``distributing free software for a fee''--that is unambiguous.
They seem to make some of the the very same points you are trying to make. So please, chill out, and don't speak for other people until you are sure what their position is.
-Peter
PS: GNU is a system, the FSF is a group. GNU doesn't make assumptions, the FSF does.
There is no Free Software trademark. That's not a metaphysical statement, like "there is no spoon."
The advocates of ``open source software'' tried to make it a trademark, saying this would enable them to prevent misuse. This initiative was later dropped, the term being too descriptive to qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of ``free software'': there is no legal constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software packages ``open source'' even though they did not fit the official definition; I have observed some instances myself.
Horseshit. What if I claim you can make gold out of peanut butter? Is it then the Scientific community's job to figure out how I did it, even though I can't reliably reproduce it?
They jumped the gun, and they are paying the price. It's a hard lesson for them, and for that I'm sorry.
But you can't hang it on other Scientists to prove something they can't even reproduce. If so, none of the advances over the last 50 years would have happened because they would have been too busy fucking around with "healing magnets" and UFOs.
Slashdot Mirror
I must have the abridged version of "The Picture of Dorian Gray."
-Peter
Guybrush? Is that you?
-Peter
Clearly, a tank rolling down an American street would qualify as undermining the liberty of our citizens.
WE are the market, WE are the ultimate defenders of our own lives.
I think it's sad that you feel like we are better off with a maternal government. What does that say about how you feel about yourself and your fellow man?
-Peter
Could you please explain what's funny about "Ford Prefect" as a name for a person for the American audience? (You insensitive British bastard!)
-Peter
This was probably my biggest frustration when I was first trying to learn *NIX. I kept insisting to my guru that there had to be a command summary somewhere that I could use to jumpstart my learning. He finally said "Dude, just do 'ls /bin'."
Wherever you are Mike, you're the man.
-Peter
Well said. A team knows they are a team, and doesn't need you sticking it in their faces all the time. A bunch of fuckoffs who aren't a team aren't going to become a team because you keep calling them team.
And especially, never, EVER use "team" to try to soften a statement that parses down to "you're getting fucked." It doesn't make it easier; it just makes you look like a tool.
-Peter
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof. which this web server is too small to contain.
-Peter
The grandparent said, "There is exists a problem [. . .]"
He also covers his bases on the whole "verb" thing.
-Peter
There is a difference between a Democrat and a liberal.
There is also, in my opinion, a difference between a "liberal" and a liberal. There are two senses of the word, supporting freedom, and generous. Contemporary "liberals" tend to focus on being generous . . . with other people's money.
-Peter
I'm pretty sure whoever labeled the picture at the top is dyslexic, or doesn't know his right from his left.
That or they made a CD changer that looks exactly like an amp, and an amp that looks just like a CD changer.
-Peter
I don't think they correct the use of noncommercial for non-proprietary because they think that Free Software can be sold the way propritary software is, in direct contridiction of what they say. I think that they make this correction because they belive that this misuse of the word noncommercial creates the impression that it is not suitable for commerical use, or not licensed for commerical use.
-Peter
I'll put Big Dan* up against your S&W for the hand-cannon award any day. :-)
;-)
It will be the last blued piece I own. My taste is revolvers only for defense. Autos are fun to shoot, but I've never seen a wheel gun stovepipe
I'm enjoying having out own, private conversation on Slashdot.
-Peter
* This one looks identical to mine except mine has 1. no scope 2. a red insert in the front sight and 3. A nice new set of Hogue's I got for my birthday. Haven't shot the new Hogue's yet . . .
I try not to think out that far, though I do think that it is worthwhile to not use black talons for the reason you cite. I think that one could harp on the stopping (as opposed to killing) power of hydra-shoks, and sell the safety factor of reliable expansion vs. over-penetration.
.357 any more, just a .44 magnum (a Dan Wesson that I affectionately refer to as "Big Dan"). When I do get my carry rig it will probably be one of these babies loaded with these. If I miss ya', I'll still burn the shit out of ya'.
.
This works out nicely, since they are the actual reasons I use them.
Incidentally, I don't have a
I seem to have a thing for guns that are no fun to shoot . .
-Peter
You are flatly wrong. Please read what the FSF actually says on the topic before you comment on what they think again.
Here are some things that the FSF actually says on the topic (emphasis in italics is mine):
I don't think that the FSF suffers under any illusions about being able to sell Free Software in the way that commercial software is sold.
They seem to make some of the the very same points you are trying to make. So please, chill out, and don't speak for other people until you are sure what their position is.
-Peter
PS: GNU is a system, the FSF is a group. GNU doesn't make assumptions, the FSF does.
I see that you don't carry hydra-shoks.
All good points, though.
-Peter
How would he know the numbers from next week? I want to know the numbers from yesterday . . . from his time-frame.
-Peter
A swing and a miss.
.357.
It matters what you do with what you bring on the plane. If you can hijack a plane with a box-cutter, you can hijack a plane with one of these.
A person with criminal intent can do a lot of damage with one of those plastic knives. An honest citizen could stop him with a snubby
The bottom line is that flying has become a thought crime, and you're guilty until you take your shoes off.
I hope that we mature as a species to the point that we realize that you can't prevent crime by criminalizing substances or objects.
-Peter
But "liberal" doesn't mean liberal any more.
I'm liberal, but I can't stand most people who think of themselves as liberal.
-Peter
From the article Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''
-Peter
I'm not his biographer, but I am under the impression that he is a pacifist. I don't think he would ever threaten even a metaphorical foot up the ass.
-Peter
The first person who says OSS when he means FS in this thread gets my metaphorical foot up his avatar ass.
-Peter
Ooh, can someone do something like this to speed up Transcode?
-Peter
Horseshit. What if I claim you can make gold out of peanut butter? Is it then the Scientific community's job to figure out how I did it, even though I can't reliably reproduce it?
They jumped the gun, and they are paying the price. It's a hard lesson for them, and for that I'm sorry.
But you can't hang it on other Scientists to prove something they can't even reproduce. If so, none of the advances over the last 50 years would have happened because they would have been too busy fucking around with "healing magnets" and UFOs.
-Peter
Can anyone explain to me why buraucrats are now drafting legislation?
-Peter
Allow me to reiterate; turning out to be right is not the sole pillar of good Science.
I did not assert that their "experiment was made up," but that it was not reproduceable.
I suppose whoever "made" them hold a press conference in spite of this fact does owe them an apology.
-Peter