This model has always been along the lines of death by 1,000 cuts. We cannot continue to be so blind to yet another "slip" of the proverbial knife. It won't be the last if the masses continue to ignore it.
So, remind me again of who educated those masses during the most impressionable years of their lives?
It's really amazing the way the cause-and-effect of a situation can be right there, flashing a 1000-watt light, smacking people in the face, screaming at them for attention, grabbing their nutsacs and twisting them horribly... and the reaction from the masses of people is "huh what? did I just notice something... nah, must have been my imagination... back to football, beer, celebrity gossip, left-right politics, organized religion, and following the latest fads for me!"
You have to hand it to the actual controllers of things. They operate with a level of mastery that would be beautiful if it weren't so goddamned terrible and dehumanizing.
Weaknesses? Most likely, as all products have. But something that really bugs me? No, not in the products I use, at least. Of course you can always improve something, but I can't really think of specific thing that I would hate.
I was going to point out that I've always thought IE is somewhat slow to use, but I before I posted I quickly tested IE9 and man has that improved, both performance and UI wise. Since it also supports HTML5 and other standards I don't think there's anything to complain about it. Firefox and Chrome like addons would be nice touch, but I personally use Opera anyway.
Knowingly or not, I leave that up to you and wouldn't presume to guess...
But you truly come across like someone who is afraid to piss off his boss.
You are not their demographic, the "luser" is. As a developer, I would hope that you would understand the need to cater to the users, instead of maligning them for not being as knowledgeable as yourself.
I do appreciate your point. Much of the "maligning" of users is unwarranted. But there is one legitimate form of it that occurs not because they are ignorant, but because they actively resist learning. Do I expect them to become expert technicians overnight? Of course not. But it's just not natural to use a system for five years and know nothing more about it than when you started. That... that takes work.
It's the most natural thing in the world to slowly pick up new tidbits of knowledge with increasing experience and to remember at least some fraction of them. There's really no excuse not to. I believe this failure comes from yet another entitlement mentality. After years of public schooling most people are not conditioned to cherish natural curiosity and to see learning as a wonderful, exciting, fascinating opportunity of discovery that opens doors and makes new things possible (see my sig).
No, instead they think it's hard tedious work because instead of learning a few general principles and reasoning from those in a dynamic and flexible way, they memorize long series of steps by rote that fail if one step in the series is incorrect. Incidentally that's why minute interface changes require "retraining" to update the memorized list, because such users have been rendered too helpless to find the new location for the old feature on their own. Since they think it's hard tedious work to be avoided whenever possible, they feel entitled to never do it unless a boss or other authority figure demands it.
So Unix has ASLR, DEP, compiler exception handling bounds checking?
VMS is the only other OS that has DEP support fully. XP has partial support by SP 2.
Checklist wise Windows is the most secure kernel
I tend to doubt that. Have you checked out PaX and Grsecurity? I personally use Gentoo Hardened. It's a source-based distro so everything in userland is also built with SSP which provides the bounds checking (one nice thing about having the source). It also includes support for SELinux (see the Resources section of that first link I provided).
Of the top of my head, I hate that Microsoft killed The Courier tablet and didn't see the potential it had. It was the first tablet that really got me excited, and in my opinion it was bad decision not to go further with it.
So you regret that their amazing genius was not applied to tablets? The only thing wrong with the Courier is that it didn't happen?
Do you believe there are any weaknesses in existing products that I could go purchase today?
Windows users also weren't adjusted to having to work under non-admin account.
by using a non-admin account for the last couple of years i learned that the system is much less secure this way.
on windows the only program that could auto update was google chrome. firefox, flash, thunderbird, java, etc, all required manual update checks (which a non too computer savvy user, like my wife, won't do). firefox actually shows that there's an update available when chacking manually, but requires to be "run as administrator" to actually install it.
same problem for the mac. system update checks won't happen automatically in non-admin accounts.
eventually i got pissed of having to update everything manually and switched my accounts to admin.
Not having a centralized package manager to easily and automatically take care of these things would drive me crazy if I ever had to use Windows. I really don't know if Windows could ever have a proper Linux-style package manager able to take care of the entire OS and all applications by itself. Even the freeware applications often have licenses that don't explicitly allow you to redistribute them, making it extremely difficult or impossible to operate a comprehensive central repository. Each little application having to run its own updater demanding that you manually babysit it for no good reason is both redundant and cumbersome.
That, and for some reason developers of Windows software just love stealing focus, popping up little balloons, and filling up the icon tray. All of those are distracting, tend to interrupt your workflow when you're trying to get something done, and create clutter. Obviously that's not an inherent issue with the OS, but does seem to be part of the culture surrounding it. On my Linux system running KDE, I can concentrate on a task for hours and never have anything pop up demanding my attention.
This isn't something you notice and appreciate until you've gone a long time without ever touching Windows and then one day you sit down in front of someone else's Windows machine and try to get something done.
What's wrong with a solid, stable company? Except of course if you are doing stock trading you want lots of highs and downs, but otherwise it shouldn't matter. Stock price has little to do with how good company is doing, other than revenue wise. In Microsoft's case it just shows that Microsoft is a solid company and will stay stable as it is for many years.
Okay then... tell me, what don't you like about Microsoft? Or, what do you consider the biggest weakness(es) of either the company itself or any of their products? I believe reasonable people can acknowledge they are not perfect on the basis that no company is perfect.
Doesn't the fact that most libraries allow for mingling with proprietary code mean that the purported success of the GPL is just a chronic brain fart Linooxers keep having?
No, it means the general philosophy of GPL is to maximize the freedoms of developers and users, including their freedom to run proprietary code if that's what they feel like doing. Isn't that better than saying there is only One True Way(tm) and anyone who does not conform is some kind of heretic? I think so, but then I'm not a zealot. I think the GPL is wonderful, a real blessing that has enriched my experience, but I wouldn't dream of telling someone else what they should use.
To give you one example for whatever that is worth... in practice, the only proprietary code running on my own systems is the Nvidia graphics driver (though I could use Open Source'ed Nouveau) and a couple of Windows video games I use via Wine. Nothing essential for the system or for getting my work done depends on proprietary code, though there's no reason why someone else's system couldn't be otherwise.
You GPL defenders contradict yourselves every time... On the one hand it's touted as evidence for the sheer power of the GPL that Google uses GPLed software. OTOH, you don't seem to have a beef with the fact that they keep the source changes as their own, not releasing it. But if it were BSDed software, that might happen, and then it would be proof of sheer Evil Incarnate. WTF.
Honestly, unless Google sends jack-booted thugs to my door who wave guns around and say "do things our way, or else" then I really don't care what Google does with computers owned by Google and operated by Google. If I have a big problem with Google, my option is to not use their products and services. They otherwise don't need my personal approval and nor should they.
You have to understand one thing or you're going to keep making the same error. When you write to me quoting my words, you are dealing with me. I am an individual, not some nebulous composite of what other people said. I don't go around touting Google's actions as some kind of victory for GPL. If GPL software benefits Google, good for them. If not, I hope they find something else that works. Is this something I worry about in my life? No.
Having said that... Google is fully compliant with the GPL because Google is keeping their modifications in-house. They are not distributing them. I cannot go download the binaries from a public repository. Under the GPL, Google is therefore under no obligation to provide their source. If Google wants to release source, that's mighty nice of them. If they choose not to, that's okay too. The only thing I expect is that they comply with whatever license they choose to use. As I know, they are. So, what would I complain about, exactly? Hypothetical what-ifs and could-have-beens? Please. That's just silly.
Re:GPL like leprosy (Was: Re:Clang/LLVM in FreeBSD
on
FreeBSD 9.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Not only will I not touch GPL code, I keep away from anyone who has been exposed to it as a developer.
Good for you! I would never expect you to use anything you find unsuitable, distasteful, objectionable, offensive, or otherwise not to your liking.
My use and enjoyment of GPL software works on the same principle. There's no reason we can't both have our way.
As an example TPB . It is an equalizing factor to the copyright rule that has been extended by stepping on everyone's rights so they will enforce rule number 3.
A regular individual guy who happens to have some programming talent, and decides to give me the fruits of his skilled labor at no charge, and says I may use it as much as I want and do anything I want with it except for a few reasonable restrictions... that is a person I respect. He is not asking much. He is in fact giving to me more than he is asking from me. I have no problem respecting his wishes. They are quite reasonable. This person is dealing with me as an equal and doing so with equitable terms.
The RIAA and the MPAA lost this kind of respectability a long, long time ago if they ever had it to begin with. What they want for themselves is not reasonable. What they already take for themselves is never, ever enough. They have this insatiable need for more and more but are not themselves willing to give more and more. They do not want to deal as equals. They want to dominate. The terms they want are extremely one-sided in their favor only and continue to become worse as time passes.
Friend, these two are not in the same boat and do not deserve to be treated according to the same standard. A reasonable person could indeed agree that what you wrote in your post can, should, and often does apply to the *AAs of the world. But I just can't justify treating a generous, reasonable programmer the same way. I have no problem honoring that which is honorable, nor would I refuse to respect that which is respectable.
There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries.
Libraries are generally licensed under the LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to avoid the imaginary problems you bring up. From that link (emphasis mine):
The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program governed under it but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely link with the program.
If you're going to be childish and call me names like "moron" and "zealot", you should least demonstrate a basic familiarity with the facts. If you feel a need to deal with things that way, it is a sure sign you are reacting emotionally and not proactively evaluating anything reasonably. Against anyone who remains reasonable, you are going to make yourself look foolish. Just for your future reference.
Re:Having an impact in the discussion
on
FreeBSD 9.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't know who that is, but I'm happy to have such an impact on you. A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen. If my opinions cause that much discussion, than I'm doing more than the usual "me too" posters, and I'll take nothing but terrible karma if it means my posts are making people think and react. And with the downmods I receive, I often do have terrible karma, and that's fine with me (said Slashdot employee also said he didn't consider me a troll). I'm a subscriber and see articles about half an hour before you do, and I will keep contributing regardless.
Eh, understand that I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't really matter to me if you're an honest user or a shill. Anything you say about anything important to me will still be subject to all the usual tests of truth so I don't share this concern about your personal disposition or how you personally get your paycheck...
What follows is my personal opinion and I have no special insider information. Having said that, I wanted to emphasize that a Slashdot employee has quite a different perspective here. You know what generates page views? Controversy. If you did want to troll, you probably have their blessing as long as people respond to it and it generates lots of discussion.
There's an emotional attachment to Android around here
Man, there's an emotional attachment to just about everything that has no inherent relationship to any emotion. This isn't marriage or psychology we're discussing here. It's part of this general trend of emotional childishness that's been developing over the last couple of decades or so. The idea that you can have a personal opinion without feeling threatened by someone who does not subscribe to it is tragically becoming an endangered species. During the mid 1990s Bill Hicks said the USA, collectively, was at around an 8th-grade emotional level. I wonder if he was being generous. It's a real tragedy our society as a whole does not value character the same way we value cleverness and usefulness
It's not just Slashdot, by any means. Idiots get in fistfights over fucking football teams. There are people who will call you a racist (which like all accusations requires hard evidence) merely for disagreeing about a matter of policy with Obama instead of, you know, explaining why they support that policy. If a consenting developer wants to give free code to a consenting user, some will call that Communist (nevermind that real Communists use force...).
The art of disliking something without demonizing it and turning it into the next avatar of Satan is nearly lost. It's basically one great big schoolyard. I'm wondering if this will eventually "hit bottom" and start improving, or if the next couple of generations will all be a bunch of overgrown two-year-olds.
If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.
And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.
If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.
How does GPL "dominate" a market? By that I mean: what's stopping these hypothetical groups from hiring their own programmers to write their own software that is licensed any way they like? A patent could definitely do that, but the GNU Public License is not a patent. If I am a developer who uses the GPL, how am I "doing harm" to you by not giving you my work for free? Again, only a false belief that you are entitled to my labor would make you feel "harmed" in any way.
What non-patented feature can you name for me in a GPL'ed project that an independent commercial project could not also implement? They would have to write their own code, sure, but if you really believe that constitutes "embrace, extend, extinguish" then you don't really understand what that term means. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is not possible without closed source and/or patents.
That's too bad (for them only) some people feel offended that they can't just copy-and-paste someone else's code into their project, but nothing is stopping them from using their own original code to match every feature found in any non-patented GPL'ed project.
The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.
I have heard this line of reasoning before and there is one thing I think it overlooks. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say there is one thing I don't understand about it.
FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?
It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.
Do you believe that's a coincidence and Linux had other factors in its favor that *BSD does not? I don't think so myself but I'm open to the possibility.
Regarding Apple's choice for OSX, it seems evident they had no intention of contributing back to the community anyway. If Linux were under a BSD license and this caused them to base OSX on Linux, what difference would that make? Should Linux users put a notch on their belt if that happened? It still wouldn't cause one single line of Apple code to be contributed back to the original developers (the most I know of is them sponsoring occasional events). It sounds like an empty feel-good concern to be blunt.
It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them. I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.
I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".
For everyone else, there is a need to demonize whatever it is that doesn't perfectly suit them even though they are under no obligation to use it. Sort of like the Puritannical types who want to shut down "offensive" shows that no one is making them watch and criminalize victimless behaviors among consenting adults that no one is forcing them to participate in. The mentality is never this direct and honest, and always covers itself up with a phony excuse, but if not for that its motto would be "it's not good enough that *I* don't do something I don't like, oh no, I have to make certain no one else can do it either!"
Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. The parent poster, Causality, is a child rapist.
So false, tasteless extremes that potentially open you up to a libel suit is the only way you know how to make a point? Of course you followed the typical form of using my own words in order to mock me. I know your type very well. Despite no collaberation you all seem to operate from the same playbook. In a way you're clones because you have no real self-hood, only what you think is your own life. I guess I'm supposed to be all upset and emotional so you can feel like you got one over on me. No, I just see what you're doing, the method you chose, what it says about who you are, and how pathetic that actually is. It's okay though, really. The world is full of people like you and they actually do have a function: nothing human beings such as yourself are the manure in which I grow.
Man, I feel like a saint next to you. Do you know that no matter how much I disagreed with someone or despised their methods, never once have I felt a temptation to stoop so low? It's like shock value is all you can do so you try turning the dial to 11. What a sorry substitute for reasoning -- especially when you imply that your intention is to correct someone who is in error.
Or, if you'd prefer to actually add to the discussion, come up with something, anything to support the assertion that Obama is knowingly causing harm with the end goal of a state-run utopia.
I'll make this real simple, though honestly this post ends my discussion with you as I just lost all respect I may have had for you. Anyway, real simple now: Obama knows that our national debt is approaching and will soon exceed our GDP. He has Greece and many less recent historical examples of what happens to a nation when they get that far in debt. Now then, in sum total, have his actions increased or decreased the national debt? Thus I draw the conclusion that since he is not stupid he knows he is not helping. For something so simple and trivial you want to make this nasty and personal?
I hope you deal with the anger and hostility you obviously cling to, before it eats you alive.
guess I should have made my point clearer. The point was that treating "the Founding Fathers" as a unified entity usable as a club to beat statists over the head only works if you ignore some of the founding fathers. The point wasn't whether his argument was valid then or is valid now, the point is that it was made in the first place.
So you've never heard of this notion called preponderence of evidence? The presence of a single dissenter does not cancel out the common belief of the group. In fact, that this group had among them a dissenter who was able to articulate the opposite position and still failed to convince the rest of them of the merits of his position reinforces the point I was making.
In summary, I never claimed they were all of a single mind with no exceptions and no dissenters. See where I never said "ALL of them felt that way?" Perhaps you are more careless with your words but there was an intentional reason why I didn't say that (which of course you couldn't be bothered to consider). It gets old providing remedial reading comprehension instruction to knee-jerkers like you.
What you are doing is like observing that the Senate passed a bill by a 98 to 2 vote and then claiming that somehow it's wrong for me to say "the Senate passed that bill" merely because 2 of them dissented. It's useless.
You should not need me to clear this up for you, but I'll do it anyway. Here's the concept: just because you have an emotional reaction to something, even a strong one, even when you really REALLY don't like that thing, this does not mean you have a legitimate factual complaint against it. If you want to make one of those, you have to earn it by telling me precisely where my reasoning is flawed. If you can do that, you'll have my genuine gratitude for setting me straight and helping me to shed a false idea, even if you're a dick about it. But what you're dong here? That's just childish.
Figures a democrat!!! Party affiliation for these type of things is only listed when a republican is involved.
Heh, you noticed that too?
For whatever reason the mainstream media has a known bias in favor of Democrats*. The way party affiliation is often selectively mentioned in less-prominent or more-prominent ways is merely one of the more obvious ones. They tend to be more subtle with other politically-aligned topics like gun control. If you get your news from multiple sources, you will often notice that mainstream news will say things like "the attacker was subdued until police arrived" where the witnesses themselves clearly reported "a citizen with a conceal-carry permit produced a pistol and stopped the criminal without having to discharge it."
They are very careful to never lie in the sense of making an outright false statement. They would destroy their own credibility by doing that. Instead, they frame information and selectively leave out certain details. That way, they maintain a facade of objectivity.
* As though one party were any better or any less corrupt than the other. There is one small difference though: Statism, or a slightly slower version of Statism.
While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts.
Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. Obama is a statist.
Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government, nor does he view it as a deserving object of mistrust. He doesn't want legitimate matters of governance to be handled by the smallest and most local level of government that is able to manage them. He likes centralization for its own sake and accepts the regimentation that comes with it. He subscribes to the belief that people should be commanded and controlled rather than reasoned with, that they should not only tolerate this but also welcome it.
He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.
If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.
Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.
Like they said on Monty Python's Life of Brian, "blessed are those with a vested interest in the status quo."
Next thing you know there is a huge uproar and demands for the government to make sure nothing like it happens again.
Where? I don't remember anyone demanding that outside the government and media.
The media is the "fourth estate". It's an arm of the government and crucial to the establishment as we know it today. Most of what appears to be legitimate debate and discourse is actually a method of floating an idea to get people used to what's going to happen anyway. This is the power that comes from the ability to frame information and to decide what information is well-known and spoonfed, and what information is obscure and known only to the minority who will not be deterred by any amount of effort from diligently seeking it.
The GP failed to understand this. He also failed to understand that much of what the media report are official statements that come directly from the government with no critical analysis applied, no bullshit called. Contradictory, self-serving, hypocritical, and nonsensical statements are merely repeated verbatim alongside facts as though all were equally legitimate. That's why he thinks the government is reacting to something other than its own desire and misguidedly places blame on the People.
Some of the People do feel that way and are governed by nothing more than their own fear because they have neither principles nor the guts to back them up when things get tough. The problem is, these are the ones who get national airtime. All the rest have no national media presence and are relegated to the fringe of alternative media. No matter their numbers, they don't have a message palatable to the national media.
It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.
There are two major obstacles. 1) Most people want power, it is glorified, and neither for any noble reason. 2) The primary way power is expressed is by disrespecting, subjugating, or mistreating someone who is expected to have to take it. It's why so many politicians and executives are sociopaths.
The saner and healthier you are as a person, the less desire you have to manipulate and control people and activities which don't concern you and don't pose any sort of danger. That kind of self-importance doesn't appeal to people who have the human qualities you mention. It's just that living in this sort of hierarchical system, where most people are petty or psychotic, and witnessing all of the injustice will greatly test those qualities.
So we end up needing to write laws to try to force people to have certain behaviors instead of it happening in a natural kind of way that comes from an ability to consider someone other than yourself. I like the contrast Aristotle provided when he said, "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." That's the humanized way. The other way is more like a machine executing programmed instructions.
I'm not the AC you asked, but it seem to be human nature to not want to give in and submit to your disability.
If only we'd add "inability to follow simple, easily understood instructions unassisted" and "unwillingness to first try Googling it" to the list of known disabilities...
I appreciate the fact that it helps clean up cookies, and I hate ad-network cookies as much as the next guy
That's a job better performed by tools like Adblock Plus, a comprehensive/etc/hosts (or equiv.) file, various cookie management add-ons (or your browser's blocklist), session cookies only, and other measures that target the actual issue. That is much more effective and makes a great deal more sense than using a virus scanner for something that is not a virus.
I love nanny state and hate free speech. Now what?
Then you should be far happier than most -- you can watch the news and see politics unfold and feel like you're getting what you want. As a minimal-government type with strong social Libertarian leanings, I couldn't tell you what that's like.
Are you fucking stupid? Jesus supposedly believed to be a god and a son of god. It's not possible to be more religious than that.
Far from it, friend. I simply don't consider all people who believe in God to be "religious". Religion is something different though related.
Jesus had his own kind of spirituality that was not taught to him. If he accepted what he was taught, the religious authorities would have accepted him as one of their own and considered his knowledge and ability to draw crowds an asset. He thought for himself on key issues of the day and went against the religion he was taught. He did not mindlessly follow a dogma and ignore the hypocrisy of the priests which are hallmarks of organized religion. He was an individual. That's why the priesthood felt so threatened by him. It's not too different from how the Catholic church treated Galileo, the difference being that Galileo spoke of far more mundane physical matters (not philosophy or theology) that could have been 100% proven by looking through a telescope, something the authorities just refused to do; either way it was an individual who did not merely accept the doctrine of the time.
It's hard sometimes to separate what Jesus himself believed from the modern church doctrine. For example, Jesus did not claim deity. Not only did he say "of myself (i.e. without God) I can do nothing", he also said that in the future others would come who would do even more powerful things than he did. This is hardly an exclusive claim of Godhood. Try explaining that to a mainstream Christian and you will quickly earn an enemy (as many of them seem to have missed the emphasis on forgiveness and loving your neighbor and have plenty of hate in their hearts, again that hypocrisy is the difference between religion that must be taught to you versus your own philosophy that really means something and seems real to you).
Slashdot Mirror
This model has always been along the lines of death by 1,000 cuts. We cannot continue to be so blind to yet another "slip" of the proverbial knife. It won't be the last if the masses continue to ignore it.
So, remind me again of who educated those masses during the most impressionable years of their lives?
... and the reaction from the masses of people is "huh what? did I just notice something ... nah, must have been my imagination ... back to football, beer, celebrity gossip, left-right politics, organized religion, and following the latest fads for me!"
It's really amazing the way the cause-and-effect of a situation can be right there, flashing a 1000-watt light, smacking people in the face, screaming at them for attention, grabbing their nutsacs and twisting them horribly
You have to hand it to the actual controllers of things. They operate with a level of mastery that would be beautiful if it weren't so goddamned terrible and dehumanizing.
Weaknesses? Most likely, as all products have. But something that really bugs me? No, not in the products I use, at least. Of course you can always improve something, but I can't really think of specific thing that I would hate. I was going to point out that I've always thought IE is somewhat slow to use, but I before I posted I quickly tested IE9 and man has that improved, both performance and UI wise. Since it also supports HTML5 and other standards I don't think there's anything to complain about it. Firefox and Chrome like addons would be nice touch, but I personally use Opera anyway.
Knowingly or not, I leave that up to you and wouldn't presume to guess ...
But you truly come across like someone who is afraid to piss off his boss.
You are not their demographic, the "luser" is. As a developer, I would hope that you would understand the need to cater to the users, instead of maligning them for not being as knowledgeable as yourself.
I do appreciate your point. Much of the "maligning" of users is unwarranted. But there is one legitimate form of it that occurs not because they are ignorant, but because they actively resist learning. Do I expect them to become expert technicians overnight? Of course not. But it's just not natural to use a system for five years and know nothing more about it than when you started. That ... that takes work.
It's the most natural thing in the world to slowly pick up new tidbits of knowledge with increasing experience and to remember at least some fraction of them. There's really no excuse not to. I believe this failure comes from yet another entitlement mentality. After years of public schooling most people are not conditioned to cherish natural curiosity and to see learning as a wonderful, exciting, fascinating opportunity of discovery that opens doors and makes new things possible (see my sig).
No, instead they think it's hard tedious work because instead of learning a few general principles and reasoning from those in a dynamic and flexible way, they memorize long series of steps by rote that fail if one step in the series is incorrect. Incidentally that's why minute interface changes require "retraining" to update the memorized list, because such users have been rendered too helpless to find the new location for the old feature on their own. Since they think it's hard tedious work to be avoided whenever possible, they feel entitled to never do it unless a boss or other authority figure demands it.
So Unix has ASLR, DEP, compiler exception handling bounds checking?
VMS is the only other OS that has DEP support fully. XP has partial support by SP 2.
Checklist wise Windows is the most secure kernel
I tend to doubt that. Have you checked out PaX and Grsecurity? I personally use Gentoo Hardened. It's a source-based distro so everything in userland is also built with SSP which provides the bounds checking (one nice thing about having the source). It also includes support for SELinux (see the Resources section of that first link I provided).
Of the top of my head, I hate that Microsoft killed The Courier tablet and didn't see the potential it had. It was the first tablet that really got me excited, and in my opinion it was bad decision not to go further with it.
So you regret that their amazing genius was not applied to tablets? The only thing wrong with the Courier is that it didn't happen?
Do you believe there are any weaknesses in existing products that I could go purchase today?
Windows users also weren't adjusted to having to work under non-admin account.
by using a non-admin account for the last couple of years i learned that the system is much less secure this way.
on windows the only program that could auto update was google chrome. firefox, flash, thunderbird, java, etc, all required manual update checks (which a non too computer savvy user, like my wife, won't do). firefox actually shows that there's an update available when chacking manually, but requires to be "run as administrator" to actually install it.
same problem for the mac. system update checks won't happen automatically in non-admin accounts.
eventually i got pissed of having to update everything manually and switched my accounts to admin.
Not having a centralized package manager to easily and automatically take care of these things would drive me crazy if I ever had to use Windows. I really don't know if Windows could ever have a proper Linux-style package manager able to take care of the entire OS and all applications by itself. Even the freeware applications often have licenses that don't explicitly allow you to redistribute them, making it extremely difficult or impossible to operate a comprehensive central repository. Each little application having to run its own updater demanding that you manually babysit it for no good reason is both redundant and cumbersome.
That, and for some reason developers of Windows software just love stealing focus, popping up little balloons, and filling up the icon tray. All of those are distracting, tend to interrupt your workflow when you're trying to get something done, and create clutter. Obviously that's not an inherent issue with the OS, but does seem to be part of the culture surrounding it. On my Linux system running KDE, I can concentrate on a task for hours and never have anything pop up demanding my attention.
This isn't something you notice and appreciate until you've gone a long time without ever touching Windows and then one day you sit down in front of someone else's Windows machine and try to get something done.
What's wrong with a solid, stable company? Except of course if you are doing stock trading you want lots of highs and downs, but otherwise it shouldn't matter. Stock price has little to do with how good company is doing, other than revenue wise. In Microsoft's case it just shows that Microsoft is a solid company and will stay stable as it is for many years.
Okay then... tell me, what don't you like about Microsoft? Or, what do you consider the biggest weakness(es) of either the company itself or any of their products? I believe reasonable people can acknowledge they are not perfect on the basis that no company is perfect.
Doesn't the fact that most libraries allow for mingling with proprietary code mean that the purported success of the GPL is just a chronic brain fart Linooxers keep having?
No, it means the general philosophy of GPL is to maximize the freedoms of developers and users, including their freedom to run proprietary code if that's what they feel like doing. Isn't that better than saying there is only One True Way(tm) and anyone who does not conform is some kind of heretic? I think so, but then I'm not a zealot. I think the GPL is wonderful, a real blessing that has enriched my experience, but I wouldn't dream of telling someone else what they should use.
... in practice, the only proprietary code running on my own systems is the Nvidia graphics driver (though I could use Open Source'ed Nouveau) and a couple of Windows video games I use via Wine. Nothing essential for the system or for getting my work done depends on proprietary code, though there's no reason why someone else's system couldn't be otherwise.
To give you one example for whatever that is worth
You GPL defenders contradict yourselves every time... On the one hand it's touted as evidence for the sheer power of the GPL that Google uses GPLed software. OTOH, you don't seem to have a beef with the fact that they keep the source changes as their own, not releasing it. But if it were BSDed software, that might happen, and then it would be proof of sheer Evil Incarnate. WTF.
Honestly, unless Google sends jack-booted thugs to my door who wave guns around and say "do things our way, or else" then I really don't care what Google does with computers owned by Google and operated by Google. If I have a big problem with Google, my option is to not use their products and services. They otherwise don't need my personal approval and nor should they.
... Google is fully compliant with the GPL because Google is keeping their modifications in-house. They are not distributing them. I cannot go download the binaries from a public repository. Under the GPL, Google is therefore under no obligation to provide their source. If Google wants to release source, that's mighty nice of them. If they choose not to, that's okay too. The only thing I expect is that they comply with whatever license they choose to use. As I know, they are. So, what would I complain about, exactly? Hypothetical what-ifs and could-have-beens? Please. That's just silly.
You have to understand one thing or you're going to keep making the same error. When you write to me quoting my words, you are dealing with me. I am an individual, not some nebulous composite of what other people said. I don't go around touting Google's actions as some kind of victory for GPL. If GPL software benefits Google, good for them. If not, I hope they find something else that works. Is this something I worry about in my life? No.
Having said that
Not only will I not touch GPL code, I keep away from anyone who has been exposed to it as a developer.
Good for you! I would never expect you to use anything you find unsuitable, distasteful, objectionable, offensive, or otherwise not to your liking.
My use and enjoyment of GPL software works on the same principle. There's no reason we can't both have our way.
As an example TPB . It is an equalizing factor to the copyright rule that has been extended by stepping on everyone's rights so they will enforce rule number 3.
A regular individual guy who happens to have some programming talent, and decides to give me the fruits of his skilled labor at no charge, and says I may use it as much as I want and do anything I want with it except for a few reasonable restrictions ... that is a person I respect. He is not asking much. He is in fact giving to me more than he is asking from me. I have no problem respecting his wishes. They are quite reasonable. This person is dealing with me as an equal and doing so with equitable terms.
The RIAA and the MPAA lost this kind of respectability a long, long time ago if they ever had it to begin with. What they want for themselves is not reasonable. What they already take for themselves is never, ever enough. They have this insatiable need for more and more but are not themselves willing to give more and more. They do not want to deal as equals. They want to dominate. The terms they want are extremely one-sided in their favor only and continue to become worse as time passes.
Friend, these two are not in the same boat and do not deserve to be treated according to the same standard. A reasonable person could indeed agree that what you wrote in your post can, should, and often does apply to the *AAs of the world. But I just can't justify treating a generous, reasonable programmer the same way. I have no problem honoring that which is honorable, nor would I refuse to respect that which is respectable.
There are reasons not to use GPL not having to do with modifying code, but simply running the code. E.g. GPL'd libraries.
Libraries are generally licensed under the LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to avoid the imaginary problems you bring up. From that link (emphasis mine):
The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program governed under it but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely link with the program.
If you're going to be childish and call me names like "moron" and "zealot", you should least demonstrate a basic familiarity with the facts. If you feel a need to deal with things that way, it is a sure sign you are reacting emotionally and not proactively evaluating anything reasonably. Against anyone who remains reasonable, you are going to make yourself look foolish. Just for your future reference.
I don't know who that is, but I'm happy to have such an impact on you. A Slashdot employee recently told me that my comments generate more moderations than any he's ever seen. If my opinions cause that much discussion, than I'm doing more than the usual "me too" posters, and I'll take nothing but terrible karma if it means my posts are making people think and react. And with the downmods I receive, I often do have terrible karma, and that's fine with me (said Slashdot employee also said he didn't consider me a troll). I'm a subscriber and see articles about half an hour before you do, and I will keep contributing regardless.
Eh, understand that I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't really matter to me if you're an honest user or a shill. Anything you say about anything important to me will still be subject to all the usual tests of truth so I don't share this concern about your personal disposition or how you personally get your paycheck ...
What follows is my personal opinion and I have no special insider information. Having said that, I wanted to emphasize that a Slashdot employee has quite a different perspective here. You know what generates page views? Controversy. If you did want to troll, you probably have their blessing as long as people respond to it and it generates lots of discussion.
There's an emotional attachment to Android around here
Man, there's an emotional attachment to just about everything that has no inherent relationship to any emotion. This isn't marriage or psychology we're discussing here. It's part of this general trend of emotional childishness that's been developing over the last couple of decades or so. The idea that you can have a personal opinion without feeling threatened by someone who does not subscribe to it is tragically becoming an endangered species. During the mid 1990s Bill Hicks said the USA, collectively, was at around an 8th-grade emotional level. I wonder if he was being generous. It's a real tragedy our society as a whole does not value character the same way we value cleverness and usefulness
It's not just Slashdot, by any means. Idiots get in fistfights over fucking football teams. There are people who will call you a racist (which like all accusations requires hard evidence) merely for disagreeing about a matter of policy with Obama instead of, you know, explaining why they support that policy. If a consenting developer wants to give free code to a consenting user, some will call that Communist (nevermind that real Communists use force...).
The art of disliking something without demonizing it and turning it into the next avatar of Satan is nearly lost. It's basically one great big schoolyard. I'm wondering if this will eventually "hit bottom" and start improving, or if the next couple of generations will all be a bunch of overgrown two-year-olds.
If they want to give 90% back - which is common behavior for proprietary derivatives of BSD licensed codebases - they can't. They have to give back 100%, or stay out.
And if that's not to their liking, the only thing they miss out on is the gratis skilled labor of strangers. They are still free to write their own code under any license they want. I just don't see the problem, unless of course there is a sense of entitlement to something no one actually owes them. That's the only explanation for why anyone would experience any distress over this.
If you can't see how the GPL dominating a market can do harm to groups of people that can't use the GPLed version but needs customisations - then you've not thought hard enough about the problem. Think about monopolies and "embrace, extend, extinguish", just performed with software given away gratis with restrictions.
How does GPL "dominate" a market? By that I mean: what's stopping these hypothetical groups from hiring their own programmers to write their own software that is licensed any way they like? A patent could definitely do that, but the GNU Public License is not a patent. If I am a developer who uses the GPL, how am I "doing harm" to you by not giving you my work for free? Again, only a false belief that you are entitled to my labor would make you feel "harmed" in any way.
What non-patented feature can you name for me in a GPL'ed project that an independent commercial project could not also implement? They would have to write their own code, sure, but if you really believe that constitutes "embrace, extend, extinguish" then you don't really understand what that term means. "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is not possible without closed source and/or patents.
That's too bad (for them only) some people feel offended that they can't just copy-and-paste someone else's code into their project, but nothing is stopping them from using their own original code to match every feature found in any non-patented GPL'ed project.
The GPL is an evolutionary dead end. It's one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time - what could go wrong?" Now we know a few things that DID go wrong. There's a reason Apple used FreeBSD as their basis for OSX and not Linux.
I have heard this line of reasoning before and there is one thing I think it overlooks. Maybe I'm wrong, so I'll say there is one thing I don't understand about it.
FreeBSD (and NetBSD and OpenBSD) have been around roughly as long as Linux has, since the early 1990s. How do you explain the fact that *BSD is a niche OS most users have never heard of, while usage of Linux skyrocketed and it became something that most Joe Sixpacks have at least heard of if not something they actually use as a Windows alternative?
It would appear that the GPL is superior in terms of attracting developers and establishing a userbase on standard PC hardware in a Windows-dominated world.
Do you believe that's a coincidence and Linux had other factors in its favor that *BSD does not? I don't think so myself but I'm open to the possibility.
Regarding Apple's choice for OSX, it seems evident they had no intention of contributing back to the community anyway. If Linux were under a BSD license and this caused them to base OSX on Linux, what difference would that make? Should Linux users put a notch on their belt if that happened? It still wouldn't cause one single line of Apple code to be contributed back to the original developers (the most I know of is them sponsoring occasional events). It sounds like an empty feel-good concern to be blunt.
What's wrong with GPL?
It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back. You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them. I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.
I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it. But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license. For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".
For everyone else, there is a need to demonize whatever it is that doesn't perfectly suit them even though they are under no obligation to use it. Sort of like the Puritannical types who want to shut down "offensive" shows that no one is making them watch and criminalize victimless behaviors among consenting adults that no one is forcing them to participate in. The mentality is never this direct and honest, and always covers itself up with a phony excuse, but if not for that its motto would be "it's not good enough that *I* don't do something I don't like, oh no, I have to make certain no one else can do it either!"
Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. The parent poster, Causality, is a child rapist.
So false, tasteless extremes that potentially open you up to a libel suit is the only way you know how to make a point? Of course you followed the typical form of using my own words in order to mock me. I know your type very well. Despite no collaberation you all seem to operate from the same playbook. In a way you're clones because you have no real self-hood, only what you think is your own life. I guess I'm supposed to be all upset and emotional so you can feel like you got one over on me. No, I just see what you're doing, the method you chose, what it says about who you are, and how pathetic that actually is. It's okay though, really. The world is full of people like you and they actually do have a function: nothing human beings such as yourself are the manure in which I grow.
Man, I feel like a saint next to you. Do you know that no matter how much I disagreed with someone or despised their methods, never once have I felt a temptation to stoop so low? It's like shock value is all you can do so you try turning the dial to 11. What a sorry substitute for reasoning -- especially when you imply that your intention is to correct someone who is in error.
Or, if you'd prefer to actually add to the discussion, come up with something, anything to support the assertion that Obama is knowingly causing harm with the end goal of a state-run utopia.
I'll make this real simple, though honestly this post ends my discussion with you as I just lost all respect I may have had for you. Anyway, real simple now: Obama knows that our national debt is approaching and will soon exceed our GDP. He has Greece and many less recent historical examples of what happens to a nation when they get that far in debt. Now then, in sum total, have his actions increased or decreased the national debt? Thus I draw the conclusion that since he is not stupid he knows he is not helping. For something so simple and trivial you want to make this nasty and personal?
I hope you deal with the anger and hostility you obviously cling to, before it eats you alive.
guess I should have made my point clearer. The point was that treating "the Founding Fathers" as a unified entity usable as a club to beat statists over the head only works if you ignore some of the founding fathers. The point wasn't whether his argument was valid then or is valid now, the point is that it was made in the first place.
So you've never heard of this notion called preponderence of evidence? The presence of a single dissenter does not cancel out the common belief of the group. In fact, that this group had among them a dissenter who was able to articulate the opposite position and still failed to convince the rest of them of the merits of his position reinforces the point I was making.
In summary, I never claimed they were all of a single mind with no exceptions and no dissenters. See where I never said "ALL of them felt that way?" Perhaps you are more careless with your words but there was an intentional reason why I didn't say that (which of course you couldn't be bothered to consider). It gets old providing remedial reading comprehension instruction to knee-jerkers like you.
What you are doing is like observing that the Senate passed a bill by a 98 to 2 vote and then claiming that somehow it's wrong for me to say "the Senate passed that bill" merely because 2 of them dissented. It's useless.
You should not need me to clear this up for you, but I'll do it anyway. Here's the concept: just because you have an emotional reaction to something, even a strong one, even when you really REALLY don't like that thing, this does not mean you have a legitimate factual complaint against it. If you want to make one of those, you have to earn it by telling me precisely where my reasoning is flawed. If you can do that, you'll have my genuine gratitude for setting me straight and helping me to shed a false idea, even if you're a dick about it. But what you're dong here? That's just childish.
Figures a democrat!!! Party affiliation for these type of things is only listed when a republican is involved.
Heh, you noticed that too?
For whatever reason the mainstream media has a known bias in favor of Democrats*. The way party affiliation is often selectively mentioned in less-prominent or more-prominent ways is merely one of the more obvious ones. They tend to be more subtle with other politically-aligned topics like gun control. If you get your news from multiple sources, you will often notice that mainstream news will say things like "the attacker was subdued until police arrived" where the witnesses themselves clearly reported "a citizen with a conceal-carry permit produced a pistol and stopped the criminal without having to discharge it."
They are very careful to never lie in the sense of making an outright false statement. They would destroy their own credibility by doing that. Instead, they frame information and selectively leave out certain details. That way, they maintain a facade of objectivity.
* As though one party were any better or any less corrupt than the other. There is one small difference though: Statism, or a slightly slower version of Statism.
While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts.
Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. Obama is a statist.
Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government, nor does he view it as a deserving object of mistrust. He doesn't want legitimate matters of governance to be handled by the smallest and most local level of government that is able to manage them. He likes centralization for its own sake and accepts the regimentation that comes with it. He subscribes to the belief that people should be commanded and controlled rather than reasoned with, that they should not only tolerate this but also welcome it.
He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.
If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.
Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.
Like they said on Monty Python's Life of Brian, "blessed are those with a vested interest in the status quo."
Neither is ballmer - He's not evil, he's just stupid.
There's no meaningful difference.
In fact stupid may be worse; it is much more common and much less likely to reconsider its ways.
Next thing you know there is a huge uproar and demands for the government to make sure nothing like it happens again.
Where? I don't remember anyone demanding that outside the government and media.
The media is the "fourth estate". It's an arm of the government and crucial to the establishment as we know it today. Most of what appears to be legitimate debate and discourse is actually a method of floating an idea to get people used to what's going to happen anyway. This is the power that comes from the ability to frame information and to decide what information is well-known and spoonfed, and what information is obscure and known only to the minority who will not be deterred by any amount of effort from diligently seeking it.
The GP failed to understand this. He also failed to understand that much of what the media report are official statements that come directly from the government with no critical analysis applied, no bullshit called. Contradictory, self-serving, hypocritical, and nonsensical statements are merely repeated verbatim alongside facts as though all were equally legitimate. That's why he thinks the government is reacting to something other than its own desire and misguidedly places blame on the People.
Some of the People do feel that way and are governed by nothing more than their own fear because they have neither principles nor the guts to back them up when things get tough. The problem is, these are the ones who get national airtime. All the rest have no national media presence and are relegated to the fringe of alternative media. No matter their numbers, they don't have a message palatable to the national media.
It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.
There are two major obstacles. 1) Most people want power, it is glorified, and neither for any noble reason. 2) The primary way power is expressed is by disrespecting, subjugating, or mistreating someone who is expected to have to take it. It's why so many politicians and executives are sociopaths.
The saner and healthier you are as a person, the less desire you have to manipulate and control people and activities which don't concern you and don't pose any sort of danger. That kind of self-importance doesn't appeal to people who have the human qualities you mention. It's just that living in this sort of hierarchical system, where most people are petty or psychotic, and witnessing all of the injustice will greatly test those qualities.
So we end up needing to write laws to try to force people to have certain behaviors instead of it happening in a natural kind of way that comes from an ability to consider someone other than yourself. I like the contrast Aristotle provided when he said, "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." That's the humanized way. The other way is more like a machine executing programmed instructions.
I'm not the AC you asked, but it seem to be human nature to not want to give in and submit to your disability.
If only we'd add "inability to follow simple, easily understood instructions unassisted" and "unwillingness to first try Googling it" to the list of known disabilities...
I appreciate the fact that it helps clean up cookies, and I hate ad-network cookies as much as the next guy
That's a job better performed by tools like Adblock Plus, a comprehensive /etc/hosts (or equiv.) file, various cookie management add-ons (or your browser's blocklist), session cookies only, and other measures that target the actual issue. That is much more effective and makes a great deal more sense than using a virus scanner for something that is not a virus.
I love nanny state and hate free speech. Now what?
Then you should be far happier than most -- you can watch the news and see politics unfold and feel like you're getting what you want. As a minimal-government type with strong social Libertarian leanings, I couldn't tell you what that's like.
Are you fucking stupid? Jesus supposedly believed to be a god and a son of god. It's not possible to be more religious than that.
Far from it, friend. I simply don't consider all people who believe in God to be "religious". Religion is something different though related.
Jesus had his own kind of spirituality that was not taught to him. If he accepted what he was taught, the religious authorities would have accepted him as one of their own and considered his knowledge and ability to draw crowds an asset. He thought for himself on key issues of the day and went against the religion he was taught. He did not mindlessly follow a dogma and ignore the hypocrisy of the priests which are hallmarks of organized religion. He was an individual. That's why the priesthood felt so threatened by him. It's not too different from how the Catholic church treated Galileo, the difference being that Galileo spoke of far more mundane physical matters (not philosophy or theology) that could have been 100% proven by looking through a telescope, something the authorities just refused to do; either way it was an individual who did not merely accept the doctrine of the time.
It's hard sometimes to separate what Jesus himself believed from the modern church doctrine. For example, Jesus did not claim deity. Not only did he say "of myself (i.e. without God) I can do nothing", he also said that in the future others would come who would do even more powerful things than he did. This is hardly an exclusive claim of Godhood. Try explaining that to a mainstream Christian and you will quickly earn an enemy (as many of them seem to have missed the emphasis on forgiveness and loving your neighbor and have plenty of hate in their hearts, again that hypocrisy is the difference between religion that must be taught to you versus your own philosophy that really means something and seems real to you).