That's all fine and nice, but all your logic is based on these bizarre axioms. ALL religions have bizarre axioms that conflict with other religions.
Tell me WHY I should believe any of them. There have been thousands of religions throughout human history, why should I pick any that are popular today, or any of the branches/forks of those.
I have friends of many faiths, and they all think I should become followers of their faith. They tell me the axioms that their faith is based on, but how can I make a decision to believe any of them. Why must so many people make a decision to believe a set of axioms, often the same set of axioms their family, friends, and/or community made a choice to believe in? Why is that even considered sane?
Why would deciding to believe in God and the Bible be any different than deciding to believe in many gods and some other ancient book? Most people would consider the latter to be insane, but not the former, but they both require the same sort of belief in certain axioms for no particular reason.
If the story is really true, then Noah's ark has got to one big godblessed boat. In fact, it'd probably have to be big enough that it could be seen from space, with the naked eye.
Pfft, doesn't really look like part of a boat to me, nor big enough to hold two of every animal...
Of course, not all Christians believe the Bible is so literal, but I find it amazing how many people actually believe that Noah built a boat large enough to hold two of every animal on the planet, collected them on the boat, kept them alive, and survived a flood that put the entire globe under water. And just 5(6?) thousand years later, there is absolutely no trace of the flood, the boat, the near mass extinctions, and the whole planet is thriving with life again.
To the parent poster to which I'm responding... What is your take on that?
I don't get the whole thing about drivers that include firmware. Why does it matter? As long as the firmware is freely distributable without any strings attached... A line has to be drawn somewhere, but I think they're going to far.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Is the license for firmware included in some drivers restrictive in some way?
I'm not trolling or anything -- Debian is possibly the most respectable distro there is -- I'm just asking.
The thing that REALLY gets me about Epiphany is the idiotic bookmark system. They threw away the baby with the bath water.
That "feature" alone lost me as a user(of Epiphany, not GNOME). Epiphany's bookmark system is slowly starting to resemble a "normal" bookmark system again(because most people hate it the way it is), while Galeon has been slowly adding incremental improvements to their bookmark system. Simply being able to have bookmark aliases in Galeon makes Epiphany's new bookmark system redundant, sans the search(who really needs to SEARCH their bookmarks anyway).
As for the "Spatial" Nautilus... At first I thought that was just stupid fluff. I thought they would lose users over that. After trying it, I have come to the conclusion that it is so much better. I never liked using file managers before, but now I actually use Nautilus some.
The one feature of the new Nautilus that makes the deal for me is the little button in the bottom left that allows you to open parent folders quickly. That way you can middle-click around, or File -> Close parent folders, and if you need to access a parent folder, it's quick. It's much quicker than browsing around your filesystem in what has become the traditional manner.
So generally, I like the direction GNOME is going, but Epiphany really bothers me. I use bookmarks a lot, have several hundred, but Epiphany's bookmark system is unusable for me, so I continue to use Galeon. I would like to use Epiphany, for it's GNOME integration, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.
But at least we have choices. I really don't NEED my web browser to come standard with my DE, so in the end, I'm happy regardless.
That's his fucking point... Just tacking on, "ON TEH INTARWEB" to something that has existed for thousands of years should get you beaten instead of granted a patent.
Class declarations may be either file scoped or block scoped. A file-scoped declaration must be the first thing in the file, and looks like this:
class Dog is Mammal; has Limb @.paws; method walk () {.paws».move() }
Yay! I absolutely _hate_ having to have an extra set of braces around everything in an entire file. I have always enjoyed the way packages, and now clases, in perl are scoped.
I know, seems like such a tiny thing, but dammit, I like to be able to go a bit further before hitting the right margin:) Especially in a language like Perl, with such compact code, lines tend to be pretty long sometimes.
Or I could write a simple samba VFS module, but as I pointed out in another response, fiddling with the creation of these files seems to make OSX upset as well.
I've tried deleting them manually as they were created to see what it would do, and that did in fact cause problems; whoever was accessing the file at the time wouldn't be able to read or write the file.
Perhaps because it shows that OSX is not the panacea some people make it out to be? Insightful maybe because it's from someone who actually has to deal with OSX in a work enviornment?
And OT? How's that? If my post was OT, so was the parent. He compared Linux and OSX, trying to say OSX is better. Well, wrong, to some people it's not.
WTF is it to you, anyway? Does it offend you for someone to make a somewhat disparaging remark regarding OSX?
The thing that pisses me off about OSX the most is all the goddam hidden files it leaves all over the place on network shares. Who the fucking hell thought that was a good idea?
From what I understand, those files,.DS_Store and._filename, hold metadata. Why OSX insists on creating these files on network shares is mind boggling. That's like walking in mud and not wiping your feet before entering someone else's house.
Anyway, for some reason, OSX creates these files, obtains a lock, and for some reason over samba NEVER RELEASES those locks. So often when one user edits a file, then closes it, other OSX clients can't access the file because they can't obtain a lock on the goddam metadata files. Yay!
$ smbstatus -L | wc -l
1679
All._ and.DS_Store files.
I have googled up no solution so far, just thousands of other people who have the same problem.
That is just the most irksome of the numerous riduculous problems OSX has at the moment.
If anyone has a solution, please let me know. Is it something obvious? Am I just stupid? I don't fucking care, I just want this shit to work goddammit! I have spent hours googling, and if somehow I have just missed the blindingly obvious solution, then I'm sorry, but please let me know:)
Note, I don't _really_ hate OSX, it's more of a love/hate thing.
Expect, but not accept. That's the fucking point in the first place, not accepting it. But you are right, breaking a bad law isn't always civil disobedience, but...
That is just being a petty criminal.
Thousands of people broke the law to help slaves escape from the South before the Civil War. I guess they were "petty criminals" too eh?
Of course, that wasn't civil disobedience, it was just doing what was right. Law doesn't make something right, you know.
That said, this guy wasn't breaking the law because it was right and he deserves to be punished in some way. A year in jail seems excessive; people get less for violent crimes.
Regarding Ass Head Valenti, it's not his place to be saying things like 'send a clear signal such crimes will not be tolerated' - he's not in a position of law enforcement.
"A California state senator is drafting legislation to block Google from releasing Gmail. Seems kind of silly, since all anti-spam filters read your messages anyway."
But it's perfectly alright for the government to monitor everything we do, without our permission, for the purpose of...whatever... instead of the relatively benign intent of delivering targeted ads, with our permission?
Further, Microsoft can stuff the EXACT SAME THING in a tiny micro-print EULA, while Google is upfront about it.
Hmmm... When he hands in the draft of the legislation, let's check the Word doc metadata to see who really wrote it.
It seems to me that you've never actually supported a corporate environment. These OEM installs and contracts are in place not because they are better than custom built machines, but because there's someone to blame (other than the technology department) when things go wrong.
a. That is a complete farce. b. I have supported a corporate enviornment, albeit a small one. OTOH, I know plenty of people who support large corporate enviornments with Linux. As I asked before, WHAT OEM installs? Are you saying you cannot get machines with any other distro than RedHat pre-installed? If that's what you mean, that is patently false.
How about you come back when you know what you're talking about?
What. The. Fuck? You are the one making these bizarre, wildly innaccurate claims...
RedHat == Linux my ass. You need a hard knock on the head with a big fucking clue-by-four.
Let me say again, WTF? Do you recommend people not configure the system when purchasing a "Unix Machine"? Do all "Unix Machines" come with a perfect configuration by default, tailored to your every need?
If you're a company looking for OEM machines, it does.
How do you figure? What do you mean by OEM? Where do you buy these OEM machines with RedHat on them? From RedHat? HP? IBM? I know IBM has built "solutions" for people based on several different distros, if memory serves, and I know that you can purchase machines with several distros pre-installed.
Why is that important anyway? Surely any company that can afford a datacenter of any meaningful size can afford to pay a sysadmin who can handle installing Linux herself.
It's only a problem on RedHat. *snip* X-Windows *snip*
Sorry to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as X-Windows. It is The X Window System, or just X.
I have never seen that problem, but I have seen other *nixes with many interdependent scripts, I fail to see how that's damning of non-"Unix Machine" *nixes.
But again, why do we care about X on our servers? $ vim/etc/inittab, make X not start already.
2. RedHat !f= (doesn't fucking equal) *nix on x86.
3. WTF does Apache have to do with ANYTHING? Apache is Apache, it's the same Apache whether running on an x86 *nix or a "Unix Machine".
4. I have never seen a *nix without a large number of startup / shutdown / whatever scripts, and I have yet to see any major headaches from toying with them, anywhere, ever, on any *nix. Why on earth is this non-existent "x86 *nix" problem not also a problem on "Unix Machines" that also have lots of scripts?
Bottom line, you stepped up in support of the DMCA, AND you supported that by saying, "some of us are in it for the money", AND you threw some OSS flaimbait into the mix as a nice little strawman, AND you stated that what the other posters were doing was illegal, when that is actually not the case in most of the world, and is yet to be proven here.
The OSS thing was a reference to some of your other hopelessly ivory tower posts.
What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, I do indeed support OSS, and contribute to OSS projects, but I am certainly not an OSS zealot by any means.
Meh, whatever. You just really came off as an asshole, so I responded in kind.
Where the fuck in my post did I mention Open Source?
Yeah, that's right, I didn't.
This doesn't have a fucking thing to do with open source, it's about freedom from tyranical legislation, which it seems you support. So fuck you.
People like you are destroying this country. People like you put up barriers to truly free markets, and a truly free society. People who think like you are legislating our country into irrelevence in the future.
When India and China become the dominant economic powers in the world, and we're still squabbling over horrible legislation, with poverty out of control, I hope you're the first fucking asshole to starve.
No, you are missing my point. The original poster was talking about issues which are seriously critical and literally destroy lives, and you injected into the discussion something which is *trivial and expected it to be taken seriously. You detracted from his post for your own, far less critical, cause, which was selfish and arrogant.
* Don't misunderstand, I'm speaking in relative terms. I'm honestly leaning towards agreement with you about male circumcision, but it was neither the time nor place to bring it up. I also find male/female circumcision comparisons, frankly, quite offensive. One is indeed a mutilation, while calling the other mutilation is a bit of a stretch.
What I find actually quite amusing is that people were modding my comment "flamebait".
I agree with you 100%. Personally, had I mod points, I wouldn't have touched your post. *I* found it inappropriate, but it certainly wasn't flaimbait, and it was only marginally offtopic.
I hate it when expressing a point of view gets labeled as flaimbait. When a point of view makes one uncomfortable, that often means one needs to consider said point of view more closely, not disregard it for being contrary to one's current world view.
Male "genital mutilation" isn't sexually impairing, nor is it even really mutilation.
Mutilation Mu`ti*la"tion, n. L. mutilatio: cf. F.
mutilation.
The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated;
deprivation of a limb or of an essential part.
Sure, it does indeed change the dynamics of sex a little, but from what I understand, a circumcised penis is usually more pleasurable for the woman.
I'm not saying that male circumcision is absolutely and without a doubt not a bad thing, but to compare it to what you compared it to is ludicrous and makes you appear irrational.
They often do, even when he's blatantly lying. Eg. he once wrote a big long post about how he had inside information about SCO's lawsuit and that SCO had a legitimate case... Instant +5, until several people pointed to his past posting history. Either he has fun trolling, or he has serious mental issues - of course, the former arguably requires the latter.
It's as if there's actually some serious astro-turfing going on here on slashdot... Either that, or there's a lot of people who have staked their careers on being MS bitches and are afraid to learn something different, so they attack it.
It shouldn't be a pain at all, as portage will handle all dependencies, just as always. And since the use flags for X is simply 'X', most people should have to change anything.
And since the "new" X is just a fork of the last "Free" XFree86, it should be no different than previous XFree86 upgrades.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me WHY I should believe any of them. There have been thousands of religions throughout human history, why should I pick any that are popular today, or any of the branches/forks of those.
I have friends of many faiths, and they all think I should become followers of their faith. They tell me the axioms that their faith is based on, but how can I make a decision to believe any of them. Why must so many people make a decision to believe a set of axioms, often the same set of axioms their family, friends, and/or community made a choice to believe in? Why is that even considered sane?
Why would deciding to believe in God and the Bible be any different than deciding to believe in many gods and some other ancient book? Most people would consider the latter to be insane, but not the former, but they both require the same sort of belief in certain axioms for no particular reason.
Oh, someone else posted a satellite image :)
Satellite photo Zoomed out
Pfft, doesn't really look like part of a boat to me, nor big enough to hold two of every animal...
Of course, not all Christians believe the Bible is so literal, but I find it amazing how many people actually believe that Noah built a boat large enough to hold two of every animal on the planet, collected them on the boat, kept them alive, and survived a flood that put the entire globe under water. And just 5(6?) thousand years later, there is absolutely no trace of the flood, the boat, the near mass extinctions, and the whole planet is thriving with life again.
To the parent poster to which I'm responding... What is your take on that?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Is the license for firmware included in some drivers restrictive in some way?
I'm not trolling or anything -- Debian is possibly the most respectable distro there is -- I'm just asking.
That "feature" alone lost me as a user(of Epiphany, not GNOME). Epiphany's bookmark system is slowly starting to resemble a "normal" bookmark system again(because most people hate it the way it is), while Galeon has been slowly adding incremental improvements to their bookmark system. Simply being able to have bookmark aliases in Galeon makes Epiphany's new bookmark system redundant, sans the search(who really needs to SEARCH their bookmarks anyway).
As for the "Spatial" Nautilus... At first I thought that was just stupid fluff. I thought they would lose users over that. After trying it, I have come to the conclusion that it is so much better. I never liked using file managers before, but now I actually use Nautilus some.
The one feature of the new Nautilus that makes the deal for me is the little button in the bottom left that allows you to open parent folders quickly. That way you can middle-click around, or File -> Close parent folders, and if you need to access a parent folder, it's quick. It's much quicker than browsing around your filesystem in what has become the traditional manner.
So generally, I like the direction GNOME is going, but Epiphany really bothers me. I use bookmarks a lot, have several hundred, but Epiphany's bookmark system is unusable for me, so I continue to use Galeon. I would like to use Epiphany, for it's GNOME integration, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.
But at least we have choices. I really don't NEED my web browser to come standard with my DE, so in the end, I'm happy regardless.
BECUASE HE DID'TN SIGN TEH KYOTA TREETY!
Yay! I absolutely _hate_ having to have an extra set of braces around everything in an entire file. I have always enjoyed the way packages, and now clases, in perl are scoped.
I know, seems like such a tiny thing, but dammit, I like to be able to go a bit further before hitting the right margin :) Especially in a language like Perl, with such compact code, lines tend to be pretty long sometimes.
Damn, no wonder programming is getting outsourced, most programmers are REALLY BAD anyway!
I've tried deleting them manually as they were created to see what it would do, and that did in fact cause problems; whoever was accessing the file at the time wouldn't be able to read or write the file.
Ducks? Where? I don't see any ducks! :P
I'll be continuing to experiment next week...
*grumble*
And OT? How's that? If my post was OT, so was the parent. He compared Linux and OSX, trying to say OSX is better. Well, wrong, to some people it's not.
WTF is it to you, anyway? Does it offend you for someone to make a somewhat disparaging remark regarding OSX?
From what I understand, those files, .DS_Store and ._filename, hold metadata. Why OSX insists on creating these files on network shares is mind boggling. That's like walking in mud and not wiping your feet before entering someone else's house.
Anyway, for some reason, OSX creates these files, obtains a lock, and for some reason over samba NEVER RELEASES those locks. So often when one user edits a file, then closes it, other OSX clients can't access the file because they can't obtain a lock on the goddam metadata files. Yay!
$ smbstatus -L | wc -l
1679
All ._ and .DS_Store files.
I have googled up no solution so far, just thousands of other people who have the same problem.
That is just the most irksome of the numerous riduculous problems OSX has at the moment.
If anyone has a solution, please let me know. Is it something obvious? Am I just stupid? I don't fucking care, I just want this shit to work goddammit! I have spent hours googling, and if somehow I have just missed the blindingly obvious solution, then I'm sorry, but please let me know :)
Note, I don't _really_ hate OSX, it's more of a love/hate thing.
That is just being a petty criminal.
Thousands of people broke the law to help slaves escape from the South before the Civil War. I guess they were "petty criminals" too eh?
Of course, that wasn't civil disobedience, it was just doing what was right. Law doesn't make something right, you know.
That said, this guy wasn't breaking the law because it was right and he deserves to be punished in some way. A year in jail seems excessive; people get less for violent crimes.
Regarding Ass Head Valenti, it's not his place to be saying things like 'send a clear signal such crimes will not be tolerated' - he's not in a position of law enforcement.
But it's perfectly alright for the government to monitor everything we do, without our permission, for the purpose of ...whatever... instead of the relatively benign intent of delivering targeted ads, with our permission?
Further, Microsoft can stuff the EXACT SAME THING in a tiny micro-print EULA, while Google is upfront about it.
Hmmm... When he hands in the draft of the legislation, let's check the Word doc metadata to see who really wrote it.
a. That is a complete farce. b. I have supported a corporate enviornment, albeit a small one. OTOH, I know plenty of people who support large corporate enviornments with Linux. As I asked before, WHAT OEM installs? Are you saying you cannot get machines with any other distro than RedHat pre-installed? If that's what you mean, that is patently false.
How about you come back when you know what you're talking about?
What. The. Fuck? You are the one making these bizarre, wildly innaccurate claims...
RedHat == Linux my ass. You need a hard knock on the head with a big fucking clue-by-four.
Let me say again, WTF? Do you recommend people not configure the system when purchasing a "Unix Machine"? Do all "Unix Machines" come with a perfect configuration by default, tailored to your every need?
If you're a company looking for OEM machines, it does.
How do you figure? What do you mean by OEM? Where do you buy these OEM machines with RedHat on them? From RedHat? HP? IBM? I know IBM has built "solutions" for people based on several different distros, if memory serves, and I know that you can purchase machines with several distros pre-installed.
Why is that important anyway? Surely any company that can afford a datacenter of any meaningful size can afford to pay a sysadmin who can handle installing Linux herself.
It's only a problem on RedHat. *snip* X-Windows *snip*
Sorry to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as X-Windows. It is The X Window System, or just X.
I have never seen that problem, but I have seen other *nixes with many interdependent scripts, I fail to see how that's damning of non-"Unix Machine" *nixes.
But again, why do we care about X on our servers? $ vim /etc/inittab, make X not start already.
2. RedHat !f= (doesn't fucking equal) *nix on x86.
3. WTF does Apache have to do with ANYTHING? Apache is Apache, it's the same Apache whether running on an x86 *nix or a "Unix Machine".
4. I have never seen a *nix without a large number of startup / shutdown / whatever scripts, and I have yet to see any major headaches from toying with them, anywhere, ever, on any *nix. Why on earth is this non-existent "x86 *nix" problem not also a problem on "Unix Machines" that also have lots of scripts?
The OSS thing was a reference to some of your other hopelessly ivory tower posts.
What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, I do indeed support OSS, and contribute to OSS projects, but I am certainly not an OSS zealot by any means.
Meh, whatever. You just really came off as an asshole, so I responded in kind.
Yeah, that's right, I didn't.
This doesn't have a fucking thing to do with open source, it's about freedom from tyranical legislation, which it seems you support. So fuck you.
People like you are destroying this country. People like you put up barriers to truly free markets, and a truly free society. People who think like you are legislating our country into irrelevence in the future.
When India and China become the dominant economic powers in the world, and we're still squabbling over horrible legislation, with poverty out of control, I hope you're the first fucking asshole to starve.
Reap what you sow, fucker.
On second thought, just jump off a bridge or something, no one wants to hear you run your mouth IRL either.
* Don't misunderstand, I'm speaking in relative terms. I'm honestly leaning towards agreement with you about male circumcision, but it was neither the time nor place to bring it up. I also find male/female circumcision comparisons, frankly, quite offensive. One is indeed a mutilation, while calling the other mutilation is a bit of a stretch.
What I find actually quite amusing is that people were modding my comment "flamebait".
I agree with you 100%. Personally, had I mod points, I wouldn't have touched your post. *I* found it inappropriate, but it certainly wasn't flaimbait, and it was only marginally offtopic.
I hate it when expressing a point of view gets labeled as flaimbait. When a point of view makes one uncomfortable, that often means one needs to consider said point of view more closely, not disregard it for being contrary to one's current world view.
Cheers.
Mutilation Mu`ti*la"tion, n. L. mutilatio: cf. F. mutilation. The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part.
Sure, it does indeed change the dynamics of sex a little, but from what I understand, a circumcised penis is usually more pleasurable for the woman.
I'm not saying that male circumcision is absolutely and without a doubt not a bad thing, but to compare it to what you compared it to is ludicrous and makes you appear irrational.
It's as if there's actually some serious astro-turfing going on here on slashdot... Either that, or there's a lot of people who have staked their careers on being MS bitches and are afraid to learn something different, so they attack it.
And since the "new" X is just a fork of the last "Free" XFree86, it should be no different than previous XFree86 upgrades.
That's my understanding, FWIW.