A hell of a lot of atheists are libertarians. The same sort of skeptical mentality that makes someone likely to be an atheist also makes him likely to be against the wishy-washy feel-good-but-have-no-effect policies of the left. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that that's where a *huge* amount of the libertarians' support comes from - people who prefer the right's fiscal policies, but hate their mixing of government with religion.
That's only because in 10 years, what was once liberal is now conservative. A man can go from one to the other without changing a single opinion, simply because over time the dividing line between the two keeps shifting toward the liberal.
You do realize that paying taxes is not reserved for citizens only, right? People here on visas still have to worry about April 15th, just like the rest of us. They only way they don't is if they are payed illegally "under the table", which is true for anyone payed "under the table" be they immigrants or not. If your bitch is about the taxpaying people paying for services for the non-taxpaying, then your complaint should be about the practice of payment under-the-table, NOT about immigration. Unless your stance is just thinly disguesed racism, that is.
Yes, and had to lose business first in order to even find out about it. Punish you first, tell you what you did wrong later, is NOT an ethical system. (SA's revenue comes from advertising for which they need e-mail to work so they can talk to the advertisers.)
For example, the current California budget crisis was caused by voter propositions that didn't have to form a coherent policy with each other. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program foo? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program bar? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program baz? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to collect the high taxes needed to fund those previously approved programs? No.
I'm sick of the oft-repeated lie that the confusion over the Florida butterfly ballots was the voters' fault. The problem was that some ballots were misprinted such that the holes DIDN'T actually line up with their labels. This was made possible by the fact that the strip of holes and the labels for those holes are two separate pieces printed seperately and joined together later. Some were joined together lined-up properly. Some weren't.
Well, don't blame me - YOU'RE the one that said "Legal reasons for doing this". If the law has zip to do with it, you shouldn't have called them "legal reasons".
That system doesn't sound like it handles write-ins at all. If 10 million people, in a grassroots campaign at the last minute, vote for a write-in, the other people don't have the ability to mark a vote against that candidate, since they didn't even know someone would write-in that name.
The system you describe would work well ONLY if there is a system in place that makes me feel absolutely convinced that anyone who wanted to run has a fair way to get his name on that ballot, since write-ins don't work. (You have to rank everyone, and the only way to vote against someone is to have his name on the ballot so you can mark him with a high number.)
If there exists some means of denying a candidate a spot on the ballot, then that system fails to be truly democratic.
And not appropriate to the situation. Do you think it is right to be punished because you live in the same gated community as a villian whom the company running the gated community has been helping hide from the law? After all, you could argue that since a gated community is a private business, you are chosing to give money to them by living there, and are thus part of the problem. Of course, pointing out that there was no reasonable way for the person to know that their gated community company was doing that is an argument that falls of deaf ears, it seems.
If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care.
Your post contains the unsupported assumption that those people "giving money to" the guilty party were aware of what the guilty party was doing. Or, at least if you are trying to pretend to be ethical, you are operating under that assumption when you say it's okay to ban everyone giving money to said ISP.
Though they might have legal reasons for this, that attitude will have to change if they expect to encourage widespread adoption of their dist. You misspelled "law". Hope this helps.
...Brussels because you vote for the party platform and not for some corporate funded drone.
And if you want to vote for the person, not the party, you're screwed out of luck. This is the flaw in parlimentary systems. On the one hand they allow for minority parties to get fair representation, but on the other hand they *require* parties. There's no such thing as voting directly for the one candidate you want.
Ideally, I'd like to see run-off direct voting as a way to empower minority parties without making party participation mandatory. During the first round of voting, you vote for whomever you like, any person, any party, or even a write-in. Then the winning top two candidates are pitted against each other in a second round of voting a few weeks later. In the second round, you can only vote for one of those two, or abstain. That way all those who voted for a minority candidate can still get involved and vote for the lesser of of the two remaining evils. That way, you don't have people worried that by voting for a less popular candidate that they are "throwing away" their vote. They still have a chance to vote against the candidate they dislike, by voting for his opponent in the second round. It's a way of being able to say, "I prefer X, but if I can't have X, I'll take anyone who isn't Y", and actually have a voting model that handles this. With something like this in the US, I'm sure GW would never have gotten into office.
The opposition to a candidate should not be punished for being intelligent enough to have differing opinions from each other.
I think it is a mistake to disallow anonymity, since there are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting it. What there should be, however, is a means by which *if* there is a need for legal action, the person could be tracked down, but their personal information isn't necessarily visible (unless they want it to be) without the equivilent of a search warrant. So, in other words, they can be anonymous until they do something where there is a legal need to find out who they are, and then they can't. (So, somewhere their personal data is on record, but it's not released to just everyone who asks.)
But the problem is nobody has a good way to stop the spam without hurting innocent parties in the process. This is what the somethingawful anecdote was about. Regardless of whether you think it is right to ban spam, it is still wrong to ban people whose only crime is having an IP address in the same block as a spammer's address.
No. It is designed to be viewed by human eyes. Therefore RGB (technically RGBI, when you take into account the rods as well as the cones) is your output colourspace. The ink on paper is still an intermediate step on the way toward human eye viewing, which *IS* additive color. The CMYK on paper is not the output color space. It is an intermediate step along the way that is incapable of storing all the possible colors that can exist in the output color space (light reaching the retinas). Using it as an intermediate step is a case of information lossage.
Yet another reason that using dead trees is a waste.
So, to summarize in a nutshell, it works better because CMYK is less capable than RGB, and so if you know you are going to have to resort to CMYK output, you should use it from the beginning so you don't end up accidentally using colors that don't map well into CMYK.
Sounds like it sucks to be doing work that outputs onto dead trees. I'm glad I don't have to. I always view the paper output as secondary. What matters to me is how the image looks on computer. Grabbing a hardcopy is not as important.
I think it's all about the timing. I'm purely guessing here, but I think Redhat made their own case because they figure that puts them in control of the pacing, and lets them force SCO to hurry up.
Once they get SCO in a position where SCO is required to put up or shut up, SCO's FUD campaign is over.
And that point will come much sooner in a case where Redhat is the plantiff than in the original one where SCO is the plaintiff and has every incentive to drag their feet on prosecuting their own case.
By making their own suit, Redhat has shortened the window of time in which SCO's FUD campaign can be effective.
RGP is an addative process for producing color to the eye. CMYK is a subtractive process for producing color on surfaces that bounce light to your eye. They don't equate.
I still don't understand. When I look at the light bounced off the surface, I'm still looking at it as RGB. My eyes don't see CMY. The subtractive model is the approximation, not the addative.
So it helps by limiting your pallete (so to speak) to that which is possible in the more limiting system you have to output with? I guess I could see that as useful, if I was in an environment where the print output was more important than the screen output. I've never been in that situation before. It seems so...last decade.
My guess is the number of pirated copies of a Linux-ported PS would far outweigh the number of copies actually purchased.
You are probably right - in which case it would make it identical to Photoshop on any other platform too. It's an expensive program who's price tag is only worth it if you use it professionally. Expensive programs like that get pirated a lot. People generally only pay the huge fee if they are going to be using it in a professional capacity.
Gimp sucks in learnability, but not in usability. They aren't the same thing. Bad learnability is something the user can overcome by reading instructions. Bad usability is not.
Slashdot Mirror
A hell of a lot of atheists are libertarians. The same sort of skeptical mentality that makes someone likely to be an atheist also makes him likely to be against the wishy-washy feel-good-but-have-no-effect policies of the left. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that that's where a *huge* amount of the libertarians' support comes from - people who prefer the right's fiscal policies, but hate their mixing of government with religion.
That's only because in 10 years, what was once liberal is now conservative. A man can go from one to the other without changing a single opinion, simply because over time the dividing line between the two keeps shifting toward the liberal.
Bill O'Reilly recently did a segment on his radio show about that.
Your credibility just went out the window.
no, a good majority of Mexican women come to the US to give birth.
Majority means more than half. I doubt more than half of all Mexican women giving birth are coming to the US to do so.
Emergency room care is not free. It's "Save their life now, worry about payment later". That's not the same as free.
You do realize that paying taxes is not reserved for citizens only, right? People here on visas still have to worry about April 15th, just like the rest of us. They only way they don't is if they are payed illegally "under the table", which is true for anyone payed "under the table" be they immigrants or not. If your bitch is about the taxpaying people paying for services for the non-taxpaying, then your complaint should be about the practice of payment under-the-table, NOT about immigration. Unless your stance is just thinly disguesed racism, that is.
Yes, and had to lose business first in order to even find out about it. Punish you first, tell you what you did wrong later, is NOT an ethical system. (SA's revenue comes from advertising for which they need e-mail to work so they can talk to the advertisers.)
For example, the current California budget crisis was caused by voter propositions that didn't have to form a coherent policy with each other. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program foo? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program bar? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program baz? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to collect the high taxes needed to fund those previously approved programs? No.
I'm sick of the oft-repeated lie that the confusion over the Florida butterfly ballots was the voters' fault. The problem was that some ballots were misprinted such that the holes DIDN'T actually line up with their labels. This was made possible by the fact that the strip of holes and the labels for those holes are two separate pieces printed seperately and joined together later. Some were joined together lined-up properly. Some weren't.
The law has zip to do with it.
Well, don't blame me - YOU'RE the one that said "Legal reasons for doing this". If the law has zip to do with it, you shouldn't have called them "legal reasons".
That system doesn't sound like it handles write-ins at all. If 10 million people, in a grassroots campaign at the last minute, vote for a write-in, the other people don't have the ability to mark a vote against that candidate, since they didn't even know someone would write-in that name.
The system you describe would work well ONLY if there is a system in place that makes me feel absolutely convinced that anyone who wanted to
run has a fair way to get his name on that ballot, since write-ins don't work. (You have to rank everyone, and the only way to vote against someone is to have his name on the ballot so you can mark him with a high number.)
If there exists some means of denying a candidate a spot on the ballot, then that system fails to be truly democratic.
Of course my example is extreme.
And not appropriate to the situation.
Do you think it is right to be punished because you live in the same gated community as a villian whom the company running the gated community has been helping hide from the law? After all, you could argue that since a gated community is a private business, you are chosing to give money to them by living there, and are thus part of the problem. Of course, pointing out that there was no reasonable way for the person to know that their gated community company was doing that is an argument that falls of deaf ears, it seems.
If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care.
Your post contains the unsupported assumption that those people "giving money to" the guilty party were aware of what the guilty party was doing. Or, at least if you are trying to pretend to be ethical, you are operating under that assumption when you say it's okay to ban everyone giving money to said ISP.
Though they might have legal reasons for this, that
attitude will have to change if they expect to encourage widespread adoption of their dist.
You misspelled "law". Hope this helps.
And if you want to vote for the person, not the party, you're screwed out of luck. This is the flaw in parlimentary systems. On the one hand they allow for minority parties to get fair representation, but on the other hand they *require* parties. There's no such thing as voting directly for the one candidate you want.
Ideally, I'd like to see run-off direct voting as a way to empower minority parties without making party participation mandatory. During the first round of voting, you vote for whomever you like, any person, any party, or even a write-in. Then the winning top two candidates are pitted against each other in a second round of voting a few weeks later. In the second round, you can only vote for one of those two, or abstain. That way all those who voted for a minority candidate can still get involved and vote for the lesser of of the two remaining evils. That way, you don't have people worried that by voting for a less popular candidate that they are "throwing away" their vote. They still have a chance to vote against the candidate they dislike, by voting for his opponent in the second round. It's a way of being able to say, "I prefer X, but if I can't have X, I'll take anyone who isn't Y", and actually have a voting model that handles this. With something like this in the US, I'm sure GW would never have gotten into office.
The opposition to a candidate should not be punished for being intelligent enough to have differing opinions from each other.
I think it is a mistake to disallow anonymity, since there are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting it. What there should be, however, is a means by which *if* there is a need for legal action, the person could be tracked down, but their personal information isn't necessarily visible (unless they want it to be) without the equivilent of a search warrant. So, in other words, they can be anonymous until they do something where there is a legal need to find out who they are, and then they can't. (So, somewhere their personal data is on record, but it's not released to just everyone who asks.)
But the problem is nobody has a good way to stop the spam without hurting innocent parties in the process. This is what the somethingawful anecdote was about. Regardless of whether you think it is right to ban spam, it is still wrong to ban people whose only crime is having an IP address in the same block as a spammer's address.
Therefore, it's your output colourspace.
No. It is designed to be viewed by human eyes. Therefore RGB (technically RGBI, when you take into account the rods as well as the cones) is your output colourspace. The ink on paper is still an intermediate step on the way toward human eye viewing, which *IS* additive color. The CMYK on paper is not the output color space. It is an intermediate step along the way that is incapable of storing all the possible colors that can exist in the output color space (light reaching the retinas). Using it as an intermediate step is a case of information lossage.
Yet another reason that using dead trees is a waste.
So, to summarize in a nutshell, it works better because CMYK is less capable than RGB, and so if you know you are going to have to resort to CMYK output, you should use it from the beginning so you don't end up accidentally using colors that don't map well into CMYK.
Sounds like it sucks to be doing work that outputs onto dead trees. I'm glad I don't have to. I always view the paper output as secondary. What matters to me is how the image looks on computer.
Grabbing a hardcopy is not as important.
I think it's all about the timing. I'm purely guessing here, but I think Redhat made their own case because they figure that puts them in control of the pacing, and lets them force SCO to hurry up.
Once they get SCO in a position where SCO is required to put up or shut up, SCO's FUD campaign is over.
And that point will come much sooner in a case where Redhat is the plantiff than in the original one where SCO is the plaintiff and has every incentive to drag their feet on prosecuting their own case.
By making their own suit, Redhat has shortened the window of time in which SCO's FUD campaign can be effective.
RGP is an addative process for producing color to the eye. CMYK is a subtractive process for producing color on surfaces that bounce light to your eye. They don't equate.
I still don't understand. When I look at the light bounced off the surface, I'm still looking at it as RGB. My eyes don't see CMY. The subtractive model is the approximation, not the addative.
So it helps by limiting your pallete (so to speak) to that which is possible in the more limiting system you have to output with? I guess I could see that as useful, if I was in an environment where the print output was more important than the screen output. I've never been in that situation before. It seems so...last decade.
I wouldn't call that a render farm. It's not 3D. Different terminology, I guess.
My guess is the number of pirated copies of a Linux-ported PS would far outweigh the number of copies actually purchased.
You are probably right - in which case it would make it identical to Photoshop on any other platform too. It's an expensive program who's price tag is only worth it if you use it professionally. Expensive programs like that get pirated a lot. People generally only pay the huge fee if they are going to be using it in a professional capacity.
Gimp sucks in learnability, but not in usability. They aren't the same thing. Bad learnability is something the user can overcome by reading instructions. Bad usability is not.