Confirmed (Mozilla 1.7). I think I found another: The leftmost (tiny) bar on Tuesday, June 15, is titled "found nothing". (It's still to the left of Abu Ghraib.)
Plus, fast food can be quite expensive. Take McDonald's, for example, at least that's my experience from Germany. They don't charge much for each cheeseburger (for example), but you get so little in return that you have to eat 4 or 5 of them to be satiated. The bigger burgers are even more expensive per pound. For the same amount of money you can get a hot meal in a real restaurant, which tastes much better than McD and consists of actual food.
If you happen to be in Germany and looking for a snack, I'd recommend a Turkish Döner Kebap over McD at any time. They're often only 2 Euro a piece, they're delicious, and they are much more satiating than the stuff McD sells.
It's not that simple. Sure, Microsoft could be offering a 75% discount or even give their software away for free, but then:
They would be asking for an anti-trust investigation. After all, if they can still make a profit giving 75%-100% discounts, how do they justify their regular prices towards less powerful customers than France?
In no time, everyone would be pressing them for massive discounts, taking France as an example that Linux is competitive and forces Microsoft to lower their prices.
This would be stupid and an enormous risk. They will rather repeat their usual canon that while the Linux licensing costs are much lower, the TCO is much higher, and that France, in their eyes is not motivated by cost savings, which only Microsoft could offer them (TCO, productivity increase, compatibility with future highly innovative Microsoft technologies (tm), yadda, yadda, yadda). Instead, France is just doing this for political reasons because they hate freedom, capitalism and of course the USA, those evil frog leg eaters! First they say no to the Iraq war, then Chirac refuses the invitation to Reagan's funeral, and now they're going open source...
Oh, and thanks for giving Sadam all that money in the oil-for-food program. $100 bags of flour sure helped the citizens of Iraq, and the $50 per bag kickback to Sadam never went towards military use.
Private censorship is normally dictated by market needs.
Market surveys indicate there is a high demand for pornography on TV. Why doesn't the FCC allow it?
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US.
Then I wonder what all this fuss is about. All in all,
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US. Since 9/11, it's the other way around. Now we're quite paranoic and giving up all our civil liberties. And Europe is merely copying the bad example that we set. They need some years to catch up, but they'll eventually reach our standards of "Patriot Act" etc... Sad, but true.
Ich kann in meinem vorausgehenden Post keine Erwähnung von Nazis in irgendeiner Form erkennen. Vielleicht solltest Du mal einen Optiker aufsuchen? Oder Dir hilft dieser Link weiter?
PS: Auf Slashdot sollte man auf Englisch posten. Das ist die Sprache mit dem komischen "th" (in Kompjuta-Bild-Notation: tieh-äidsch). Du kommst ja bald in die 5. Klasse, und hast dann auch Gelegenheit, diese schöne Sprache zu lernen.
Does the right to free speech include a charismatic German chancellor's right to stand before a large crowd calling for the destuction of the Jews in Europe? Does it include Ian Paisley's right to stand in a street making a speech giving out the names of catholics living in a protestant area and asking the crowd what they're doing about it? (The catholics were subsequently burned out of their homes btw.) Does it include a Rwandan radio station's right to broadcast hatred and orders to kill all tutsis?
You are missing the point. These things are already punishable as incitement to murder (or even genocide). What the EU wants to ban will include things like websites of Holocaust revisionists. And no matter what you think about revisionists, most do not call for any violence against Jews, or whomever else. If you suppress these people's right to free speech, you just give them an additional opportunity to play the victim, while they will always find a way to be heard. Don't do that. Counter their disinformation and/or self-deceivement with facts and lots of diligence.
The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word.
The Nazis gave us a warning what can happen when hateful propaganda meets an ignorant and gullible populace. Educate your citizens, give them ways to inform themselves, and they will be immune to inane sedition attempts.
The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be.
It isn't. But where do you stop when you want to impose limitations? Should outright calls to violences only be illegal, or do you want to ban any kind of prejudice or, nonconformist view of history and politics?
As a German, I beg to differ. There have been "hate crimes" (strange term, so many crimes happen out of hate anyway), especially after the Reunion. And there are quite a number of Neonazis. There is latent xenophoby and even anti-semitism, I've experienced it in daily conversations, especially with people 50 years or older. It's certainly not like a lot of people would consider violence against foreigners, but the prejudices and the antipathy do exist. No amount of Teletubbification of the Internet will change that.
IMNSHO it would be way better to deal offensively with the prejudices and animosities. Get people to talk with each other. Get them to talk about their fears and offer solutions. By all means DON'T pretend you could just lock all the bad emotions away in a drawer.
PS: The German laws go so far that the original Return to Castle Wolfenstein was banned for containing Nazi imagery. It is a crime to even possess it. Now they're trying to make the censorship even worse.
Unfortunately, if we take that tact, then we have to be stong enough as a culture to accept the Nick Berg video and any similar video that comes our way in the future...
because such videos are being used as propaganda to try to convince us and our allies to give up the fight against anti-freedom terrorists.
I hate to disturb your American daydream, but these people want to get the US out of Saudi Arabia, which is by all means not a free country, or even a democracy, and out of Arabian countries in general. They are against freedom (as we understand it). That's true. But they are not on a crusade. In their eyes, they are trying to take back their own countries from the evil US infidels. From the statement the murderers of Nick Berg read:
Is there any excuse left to sit idly by? How can a free Muslim sleep soundly while Islam is being slaughtered, its honor bleeding and the images of shame in the news of the satanic abuse of the Muslim men and women in the prison of Abu-Ghraib. Where is your zeal and where is the anger for the religion of Allah? And where is the jealousy over the honor of the Muslims and where is the revenge for the honor of the Muslim men and women in the prisons of the Crusaders?
They are bastards, and after viewing the video I had an urge to exercise my neck breaking skills on them (played too much Tenchu back then). But then I realized that no lasting good would come from retributing atrocities with atrocities.
Whatever punishment you want to inflict on them, saying "They hate us because we're a free country." is just simplicissistic crap. The world's not as easy to understand as you would like. Know your enemies.
Btw, do you think this kind of cruelty will win them sympathy? No more than Abu Ghareib has won the US sympathy.
I'm not sure if the world has that strong of a stomach sometimes...
Yes, but it's a huge difference whether you would force such images upon others (e.g. in TV) or just put them in the net for the interested citizen to see. You don't have to see it, but you can, if you want to know from first-hand sources what's going on. Imagine only choice people were allowed to see and evaluate things like that (and then comment upon them). Who should decide who may see them and who doesn't? Do you trust your government enough to decide it? Your next? Not only their goodwill, but also their good judgement?
Well, I respect your right to believe whatever you want. Of course, I expect the same respect in return.
Well, what did you want to say with this quote?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people
You started the fire, and now you complain about being burned. Hypocrites like you convince me of remaining an agnostic.
We will see who's right in 100 years. And no, I'm not a relativist, because that's an absolute certainty that 2104 will come, and one of us will be right and the other wishing they'd listened to the other.
You think you could scare me with Revelations? Uh, oh, the times that some (Catholic) drunkard can slap me around with Bible verses are over. How about trying to convince me of the good in your religion? But this is not going to happen. Like the school bully, you only have a club to wield, but no spirituality to enlighten us with. Luckily, not all Christians are like you. But still too many...
I tried to read your post, but all I could get out of it was:
I hate America. I hate Reagan. I hate Bush.
Europe good, America bad.
Maybe you should stop trying to read. You see, that was an ad hominem.
*sigh* You're a walking, talking cliche and you don't even know it. Programmed to spew out someone else's thoughts.
Where exactly are the hard facts and insightful reflections in your post?
I'm no Republican conservative, so save your ad hominems,
By definition, you have to talk "ad hominem" (against the person) if you want to counter the "Reagan was a great statesman" hypothesis. There is simply no way around it, and this is not fallacious. The fallacy lies in countering someone's argument by attacking him personally, instead of attacking his argument.
but here's a suggestion...go study what Reagan actually did for the economy and for the destruction of communism.
Yes, he once almost managed to wipe out communism, and capitalism, and all the rest, remember? Seriously though, the Soviet Union had to spend too much on keeping up in the arms race, and Reagan "helped" its collapse by driving this very arms race on and on. Also, the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels took their toll on SU morale. On the other hand, the CIA effectively created Islamic fundamentalism (as a relevant political movement) in Afghanistan, thus laying the groundwork for the Taliban, and even trained Osama Bin Laden as an insurgent fighter. There's always a flip side of the medal.
p.s. Isn't it amusing that Reagan's hate-filled detractors stopped calling it "Reaganomics" when it began to turn the sour economy around?
When it comes to Republican economical achievements, you should always consider this graph, too. Ok, Reagan's deficit pales in comparison to GWB's deficit, but whether Reaganomics was a long-term success is debatable.
And what "proof" (in science it's called evidence, actually, but well) exists for the opposite? That sweeping bad sentiments under the rug reduces the violence in a society?
It's those who want to restrict freedom any further that have to come up with really good arguments, not vice versa.
BTW, notice the deliberate manipulation here? They choose an album guaranteed to get high sales because the band is pieced together from two well-known bands, then claim the high sales proves copy-protection is acceptable to the consumers. (When probably it's just so feeble that it wasn't even noticed most of the time.)
He claimed that Linux could not run any games except for WineX, which he falsely claimed to cost money (most of it doesn't), then he falsely claimed that the games that work under WineX refuse to run sometimes (nonsense, Linux is much more consistent in its behavior than Windows), and then, which was the important part of his post, he went on to call Linux users "idiots" and release some pretty unfounded FUD about Linux security. E.g. which "Joe Blow" user would compile security patches himself instead of simply using his distributor's update function?
He has a point that Windows is still better for gaming, but apart from that he's a troll,
A software product for use at a user station, the user station including a processor and a storage device, the software product comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor:
enable a user at the user station to select content from each of a plurality of independent publishers;
effect transport of the selected content from each of the plurality of publishers to the user station over a communications network in accordance with an object manifest, the object manifest including an identification of the selected content, and a source address for each of the respective publishers; and
effect presentation of the selected content to the user at the user station with a user interface that is customized to the respective publishers.
Filed on April 20, 2000; 71 more egregiously broad claims to follow. This is sick.
Your editor, who long since found a monospace X font which optimizes both readability and screen space, very much misses the ability to chose an arbitrary X font.
I don't understand his (her?) problem. Konsole, as of 1.3.2 (included with KDE 3.2.2), allows you to select any monospace font. gnome-terminal, as of 2.6.0, allows you to select any installed font, however they will be forced into monospace character distances, so variable space fonts will look horrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux guys have made their goal the destruction of Microsoft.
Well, do you know a more adequate punishment for Windows 98?
Confirmed (Mozilla 1.7). I think I found another: The leftmost (tiny) bar on Tuesday, June 15, is titled "found nothing". (It's still to the left of Abu Ghraib.)
How about posting the link as a working link then...
Plus, fast food can be quite expensive. Take McDonald's, for example, at least that's my experience from Germany. They don't charge much for each cheeseburger (for example), but you get so little in return that you have to eat 4 or 5 of them to be satiated. The bigger burgers are even more expensive per pound. For the same amount of money you can get a hot meal in a real restaurant, which tastes much better than McD and consists of actual food.
If you happen to be in Germany and looking for a snack, I'd recommend a Turkish Döner Kebap over McD at any time. They're often only 2 Euro a piece, they're delicious, and they are much more satiating than the stuff McD sells.
<flamebait>If they were taking a shit, they would be taking Microsoft.</flamebait>
This would be stupid and an enormous risk. They will rather repeat their usual canon that while the Linux licensing costs are much lower, the TCO is much higher, and that France, in their eyes is not motivated by cost savings, which only Microsoft could offer them (TCO, productivity increase, compatibility with future highly innovative Microsoft technologies (tm), yadda, yadda, yadda). Instead, France is just doing this for political reasons because they hate freedom, capitalism and of course the USA, those evil frog leg eaters! First they say no to the Iraq war, then Chirac refuses the invitation to Reagan's funeral, and now they're going open source...
Oh, and thanks for giving Sadam all that money in the oil-for-food program. $100 bags of flour sure helped the citizens of Iraq, and the $50 per bag kickback to Sadam never went towards military use.
And who are these two good ol' friends?
Ahem... isn't this state-sponsored censorship?
Private censorship is normally dictated by market needs.Market surveys indicate there is a high demand for pornography on TV. Why doesn't the FCC allow it?
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US.Then I wonder what all this fuss is about. All in all,
It's actually a shame that discussions like these pop up so frequently nowadays. The censorship tendencies in Europe have traditionally always been stronger than in the US. Since 9/11, it's the other way around. Now we're quite paranoic and giving up all our civil liberties. And Europe is merely copying the bad example that we set. They need some years to catch up, but they'll eventually reach our standards of "Patriot Act" etc... Sad, but true.I hope you are wrong. :-(
Ich kann in meinem vorausgehenden Post keine Erwähnung von Nazis in irgendeiner Form erkennen. Vielleicht solltest Du mal einen Optiker aufsuchen? Oder Dir hilft dieser Link weiter?
PS: Auf Slashdot sollte man auf Englisch posten. Das ist die Sprache mit dem komischen "th" (in Kompjuta-Bild-Notation: tieh-äidsch). Du kommst ja bald in die 5. Klasse, und hast dann auch Gelegenheit, diese schöne Sprache zu lernen.
Does the right to free speech include a charismatic German chancellor's right to stand before a large crowd calling for the destuction of the Jews in Europe? Does it include Ian Paisley's right to stand in a street making a speech giving out the names of catholics living in a protestant area and asking the crowd what they're doing about it? (The catholics were subsequently burned out of their homes btw.) Does it include a Rwandan radio station's right to broadcast hatred and orders to kill all tutsis?
You are missing the point. These things are already punishable as incitement to murder (or even genocide). What the EU wants to ban will include things like websites of Holocaust revisionists. And no matter what you think about revisionists, most do not call for any violence against Jews, or whomever else. If you suppress these people's right to free speech, you just give them an additional opportunity to play the victim, while they will always find a way to be heard. Don't do that. Counter their disinformation and/or self-deceivement with facts and lots of diligence.
The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word.
The Nazis gave us a warning what can happen when hateful propaganda meets an ignorant and gullible populace. Educate your citizens, give them ways to inform themselves, and they will be immune to inane sedition attempts.
The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be.
It isn't. But where do you stop when you want to impose limitations? Should outright calls to violences only be illegal, or do you want to ban any kind of prejudice or, nonconformist view of history and politics?
Dori Doreau: Guns don't kill people.
Sledge Hammer: I know. Bullets do.
As a German, I beg to differ. There have been "hate crimes" (strange term, so many crimes happen out of hate anyway), especially after the Reunion. And there are quite a number of Neonazis. There is latent xenophoby and even anti-semitism, I've experienced it in daily conversations, especially with people 50 years or older. It's certainly not like a lot of people would consider violence against foreigners, but the prejudices and the antipathy do exist. No amount of Teletubbification of the Internet will change that.
IMNSHO it would be way better to deal offensively with the prejudices and animosities. Get people to talk with each other. Get them to talk about their fears and offer solutions. By all means DON'T pretend you could just lock all the bad emotions away in a drawer.
PS: The German laws go so far that the original Return to Castle Wolfenstein was banned for containing Nazi imagery. It is a crime to even possess it. Now they're trying to make the censorship even worse.
Yes, not to forget the Daniel Pearl video (non-graphical).
I hate to disturb your American daydream, but these people want to get the US out of Saudi Arabia, which is by all means not a free country, or even a democracy, and out of Arabian countries in general. They are against freedom (as we understand it). That's true. But they are not on a crusade. In their eyes, they are trying to take back their own countries from the evil US infidels. From the statement the murderers of Nick Berg read:
Is there any excuse left to sit idly by? How can a free Muslim sleep soundly while Islam is being slaughtered, its honor bleeding and the images of shame in the news of the satanic abuse of the Muslim men and women in the prison of Abu-Ghraib. Where is your zeal and where is the anger for the religion of Allah? And where is the jealousy over the honor of the Muslims and where is the revenge for the honor of the Muslim men and women in the prisons of the Crusaders?They are bastards, and after viewing the video I had an urge to exercise my neck breaking skills on them (played too much Tenchu back then). But then I realized that no lasting good would come from retributing atrocities with atrocities.
Whatever punishment you want to inflict on them, saying "They hate us because we're a free country." is just simplicissistic crap. The world's not as easy to understand as you would like. Know your enemies.
Btw, do you think this kind of cruelty will win them sympathy? No more than Abu Ghareib has won the US sympathy.
Yes, but it's a huge difference whether you would force such images upon others (e.g. in TV) or just put them in the net for the interested citizen to see. You don't have to see it, but you can, if you want to know from first-hand sources what's going on. Imagine only choice people were allowed to see and evaluate things like that (and then comment upon them). Who should decide who may see them and who doesn't? Do you trust your government enough to decide it? Your next? Not only their goodwill, but also their good judgement?
Well, what did you want to say with this quote?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people
You started the fire, and now you complain about being burned. Hypocrites like you convince me of remaining an agnostic.
You think you could scare me with Revelations? Uh, oh, the times that some (Catholic) drunkard can slap me around with Bible verses are over. How about trying to convince me of the good in your religion? But this is not going to happen. Like the school bully, you only have a club to wield, but no spirituality to enlighten us with. Luckily, not all Christians are like you. But still too many...
Maybe you should stop trying to read. You see, that was an ad hominem.
Where exactly are the hard facts and insightful reflections in your post?
By definition, you have to talk "ad hominem" (against the person) if you want to counter the "Reagan was a great statesman" hypothesis. There is simply no way around it, and this is not fallacious. The fallacy lies in countering someone's argument by attacking him personally, instead of attacking his argument.
Yes, he once almost managed to wipe out communism, and capitalism, and all the rest, remember? Seriously though, the Soviet Union had to spend too much on keeping up in the arms race, and Reagan "helped" its collapse by driving this very arms race on and on. Also, the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels took their toll on SU morale. On the other hand, the CIA effectively created Islamic fundamentalism (as a relevant political movement) in Afghanistan, thus laying the groundwork for the Taliban, and even trained Osama Bin Laden as an insurgent fighter. There's always a flip side of the medal.
When it comes to Republican economical achievements, you should always consider this graph, too. Ok, Reagan's deficit pales in comparison to GWB's deficit, but whether Reaganomics was a long-term success is debatable.
And what "proof" (in science it's called evidence, actually, but well) exists for the opposite? That sweeping bad sentiments under the rug reduces the violence in a society?
It's those who want to restrict freedom any further that have to come up with really good arguments, not vice versa.
It didn't even compile on my box, so I had to stick with openoffice-bin.
about:config seems to show almost the same set of options, no matter whether I use Firefox 0.8 or Mozilla 1.7rc3.
He claimed that Linux could not run any games except for WineX, which he falsely claimed to cost money (most of it doesn't), then he falsely claimed that the games that work under WineX refuse to run sometimes (nonsense, Linux is much more consistent in its behavior than Windows), and then, which was the important part of his post, he went on to call Linux users "idiots" and release some pretty unfounded FUD about Linux security. E.g. which "Joe Blow" user would compile security patches himself instead of simply using his distributor's update function?
He has a point that Windows is still better for gaming, but apart from that he's a troll,
Here you go. Not yet.Filed on April 20, 2000; 71 more egregiously broad claims to follow. This is sick.
I don't understand his (her?) problem. Konsole, as of 1.3.2 (included with KDE 3.2.2), allows you to select any monospace font. gnome-terminal, as of 2.6.0, allows you to select any installed font, however they will be forced into monospace character distances, so variable space fonts will look horrible.
(Great article all in all.)
Sad but true. Maybe they could set up a mirror next time before linking to lwn?