It's condescending, and deservedly so, because you made an unsupported and likely false assertion. If you're going to claim something is "painful to watch", anyone interested in serious discussion should realise that's going to be contentious; you'd better give evidence to support it.
I've never found any videos or audio files mplayer doesn't play.
It's not hard. WMA Pro audio, bink video, the video from the Skins DVDs (which may be technically corrupt, but play correctly in other players), advanced menuing on DVDs (Phantom of Inferno, I'm looking at you) or any menuing at all on blurays, to name just the things I've personally found myself wishing it could play (and I had to submit patches myself to get it to play 24-bit flacs).
Except the filesystem API doesn't have any way to says "commit these 500 little files in a single transaction", unfortunately.
This, right here, is the real problem. I believe reiser4 was adding calls to let one do this, but it really should be something possible in all filesystems.
"No mainstream Linux file system supports versioning". That's a travesty, right there. VMS had filesystem-level versioning before I was born, it's an obviously useful feature (heck, is there anyone who *hasn't* accidentally deleted an important file?), yet there is no linux that will support it out of the box.
Ah, but you would condemn it without even looking at the context or what was gained from those actions.
Yes, I would, because if you start saying the end justifies the means you end up with no moral boundaries at all.
Do some research on the bomber offensives and then tell me that you wouldn't have done the exact same thing in the shoes of the Allies.
What I'd've done in their position isn't the point; I'm no saint either. But what I'd want to have done, what I'd expect of myself, and what I believe to be right, is not to attack civilians, under any circumstances.
I just think it's questionable logic to accuse the Allies of war crimes when the Allies absorbed the overwhelming majority (>80%) of the civilian and military casualties in the conflict.
It's not a matter of numbers, any more than it's acceptable to e.g. lynch a serial killer. Was the conduct of the Axis side in the war worse? Sure. But that doesn't mean we should refuse to condemn anything the Allies did.
Extermination is a bit of a stretch though -- we killed more Japanese with conventional bombing than we did with the nuclear attacks and even those attacks didn't come close to "exterminating" the Japanese.
I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out what seems to be the logical conclusion of your position of "if you start a war of aggression you deserve everything you get".
Actually Berlin wasn't bombed until London was (accidentally, though nobody figured that out until after the war) bombed by the Luftwaffe.
That was with two planeloads of bombs; I'd've thought it were possible to figure that one out, or at least, not respond with the escalation to full-scale bombing raids on Berlin. (And given what an advantage the shift to attacking each other's civilian populations gave to Britain, I can't help wondering whether a deliberate decision was taken).
Oh, so it's ok for the Axis powers to bomb cities immediately before they invade them but not ok for the Allies to do the same thing if the invasion is a year or so off? Nice double standard you have there.
No double standard; of course the Axis bombing of e.g. London was equally wrong, and any number of Allied bombings for military purposes were - well, I won't say good, but entirely reasonable wartime practice. We could talk for any length about the war crimes committed by the Axis side if you like, but I don't think there's any need to - we're both agreed about them, as far as I know. Wheras you seem unwilling to accept that anything the Allies did during the war could possibly have been wrong.
I suppose the civilian working in a munitions or aircraft plant is innocent in your eyes?
Well, yes, in so far as anyone is ever innocent. I suppose you think there's no difference between a civilian and a soldier?
Bullshit. There's no reason to negotiate with a power that started an unprovoked war against your country when you have that power on the ropes.
So you'd rather have just exterminated the Japanese entirely? Why stop at two nukes, in that case?
It also would have been a violation of our wartime agreements with the British and Chinese to not seek a separate peace or anything less than an unconditional surrender.
And yet it was fine to accept a conditional surrender after dropping the bombs?
My nation has never started wars of aggression.
Covered elsewhere, I think, and beside the point in any case.
The London Blitz was towards the end of the war?
Hmm, earlier than I thought; perhaps not. (But certainly don't leave out Berlin, which is the one that started it all)
The bombing of Warsaw occurred at the end of the war? Shanghai? Belgrade? Rotterdam?
If you're talking about the complete destruction of Warsaw then yes, end of the war. Of course all these places were bombed early on, but don't try and pretend a bombing in support of a military invasion is the same thing as a deliberate attack on the civilian population.
I disagree. It should be repeated. The reason we had a peaceful occupation of Germany is because the German population was utterly and completely demoralized and defeated. When you start a war you should expect to pay the consequences.
Yeah, that approach worked so well after the first world war. Wait, no. Putting large amounts of money into the reconstruction of western europe was what forged a stable peace.
So we should have invaded them instead? Take a look at what the Japanese civilians on Saipan did when confronted with defeat and tell me that less of them would have died if we had invaded the Japanese home islands.
No, you should have negotiated more. Make a few small concessions - allowing the emperor to remain in power, perhaps.
When you mobilize the entire resources of your nation to fight said war then the entire resources of your nation become legitimate targets.
Bollocks; and, I suspect, only said at all because your nation never had its civilian towns bombed.
Call it criminal all you want but we didn't start the war. We just ended it as quickly as possible.
(The US contribution to the war, particularly if measured in terms of lives lost, is relatively small, and it irritates me when you try and claim all the credit, but leaving that aside) No, the quickest way to end it would've been to surrender. Even given that the war needed to be thought, do you really think Dresden/Kobe/Hirishima/Nagasaki shortened the war any? Did they save more lives than they cost? They didn't succeed in halting industrial production (in at least one case planes were being put together in fields, under canvas, the very next day); they seem to have been more about killing and demoralizing than war effectiveness.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think the war needed to be fought, and I understand that those at the time had been through years of hell and didn't have the benefit of our hindsight and rationality. But for the sake of trying to prevent it happening again, it needs to be said: the deliberate bombing of civilian populations that was done towards the end of the war (and it was largely the end of the war, the western front in Europe was fought relatively cleanly for most of the war, and the attacks on civilians in eastern europe and china (which, incidentally, don't for a moment think I don't condemn strongly; no major player in the war's hands are clean) were done by more conventional methods)was wrong, even in wartime, and should not be repeated.
Incidentally, regarding lost war tech., I had always heard that the U.S. no longer has the ability to cast the shells for the large 16" guns on the iowa class battleships
They no longer have the production facilities - why would they? They have 3000 spare shells and determined (correctly, it would seem) that they'd be unlikely to go through them before the ships were decomissioned. But the plans still exist; if they needed them they could build a new factory to make them.
I don't know why you think that, but the rest of the world doesn't exactly have a good track record in keeping the peace. Look at Europe before the US started stationing soldiers there in 1941 - two world wars.
My lord, are you actually suggesting that the reason there's been peace in Europe is US troops?
If you don't have at least three spare network cards at all times, you should turn in your geek card.
And even if I didn't, hopping onto newegg using my 'phone or the local library would still be quicker and easier than trying to find one in a physical shop.
Do society's rights overrule an individual's property/labor rights?
Time and again that has been seen to occur; consider compulsory purchase. But to answer your strawman, even the most fervent anti-copyright activist wouldn't deny the right to keep private, unpublished work unreleased. It's merely that once you publish a work, it's unreasonable to nod expect it to be copied, archived and all the rest of it.
get the fansubs and happen to speak japanese, because to a non-japanese speaker that's just going to sound like "blahblahblahblah." Speaking from experience
Your experience is not everything. I suspect that phrase is the first Japanese sentence many people learn (certainly was for me), simply because it's repeated, with exactly the same phrasing, so many times. You don't need to understand the language; any sound can be remembered after so many repetitions.
"Immune to viruses"? Bollocks. If you were talking about OpenBSD you might have something (although even there I'd question you), but to claim that for OSX is just idiocy.
Wasn't that a clear cut case of laissez-faire capitalism to the rescue?
More like sheer luck. IBM didn't open it up as a selling point, they did it because they'd been caught on the hop and didn't have time to retool their factories.
4.3 is fine. As a long term KDE user I was very pissed off at the team over 4.0/1, but 4.2 seems to be a good, working release. There are still some rough edges - as you'd expect from a.0 release, perhaps - but there are also welcome new features.
sync their PDA (with the instruction on their constructor webpage not matching what they see on their screen)
Amusingly enough, that's something that doesn't work for me in Vista. (Asus A730W if anyone's had any luck. *Used* to work beautifully under synce, but now they've changed to some incompatible HAL lark and that doesn't work either. Sigh.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's condescending, and deservedly so, because you made an unsupported and likely false assertion. If you're going to claim something is "painful to watch", anyone interested in serious discussion should realise that's going to be contentious; you'd better give evidence to support it.
It's not hard. WMA Pro audio, bink video, the video from the Skins DVDs (which may be technically corrupt, but play correctly in other players), advanced menuing on DVDs (Phantom of Inferno, I'm looking at you) or any menuing at all on blurays, to name just the things I've personally found myself wishing it could play (and I had to submit patches myself to get it to play 24-bit flacs).
You must new here.
This, right here, is the real problem. I believe reiser4 was adding calls to let one do this, but it really should be something possible in all filesystems.
"No mainstream Linux file system supports versioning". That's a travesty, right there. VMS had filesystem-level versioning before I was born, it's an obviously useful feature (heck, is there anyone who *hasn't* accidentally deleted an important file?), yet there is no linux that will support it out of the box.
Yes, I would, because if you start saying the end justifies the means you end up with no moral boundaries at all.
Do some research on the bomber offensives and then tell me that you wouldn't have done the exact same thing in the shoes of the Allies.
What I'd've done in their position isn't the point; I'm no saint either. But what I'd want to have done, what I'd expect of myself, and what I believe to be right, is not to attack civilians, under any circumstances.
It's not a matter of numbers, any more than it's acceptable to e.g. lynch a serial killer. Was the conduct of the Axis side in the war worse? Sure. But that doesn't mean we should refuse to condemn anything the Allies did.
I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out what seems to be the logical conclusion of your position of "if you start a war of aggression you deserve everything you get".
Actually Berlin wasn't bombed until London was (accidentally, though nobody figured that out until after the war) bombed by the Luftwaffe.
That was with two planeloads of bombs; I'd've thought it were possible to figure that one out, or at least, not respond with the escalation to full-scale bombing raids on Berlin. (And given what an advantage the shift to attacking each other's civilian populations gave to Britain, I can't help wondering whether a deliberate decision was taken).
Oh, so it's ok for the Axis powers to bomb cities immediately before they invade them but not ok for the Allies to do the same thing if the invasion is a year or so off? Nice double standard you have there.
No double standard; of course the Axis bombing of e.g. London was equally wrong, and any number of Allied bombings for military purposes were - well, I won't say good, but entirely reasonable wartime practice. We could talk for any length about the war crimes committed by the Axis side if you like, but I don't think there's any need to - we're both agreed about them, as far as I know. Wheras you seem unwilling to accept that anything the Allies did during the war could possibly have been wrong.
I suppose the civilian working in a munitions or aircraft plant is innocent in your eyes?
Well, yes, in so far as anyone is ever innocent. I suppose you think there's no difference between a civilian and a soldier?
So you'd rather have just exterminated the Japanese entirely? Why stop at two nukes, in that case?
It also would have been a violation of our wartime agreements with the British and Chinese to not seek a separate peace or anything less than an unconditional surrender.
And yet it was fine to accept a conditional surrender after dropping the bombs?
My nation has never started wars of aggression.
Covered elsewhere, I think, and beside the point in any case.
The London Blitz was towards the end of the war?
Hmm, earlier than I thought; perhaps not. (But certainly don't leave out Berlin, which is the one that started it all)
The bombing of Warsaw occurred at the end of the war? Shanghai? Belgrade? Rotterdam?
If you're talking about the complete destruction of Warsaw then yes, end of the war. Of course all these places were bombed early on, but don't try and pretend a bombing in support of a military invasion is the same thing as a deliberate attack on the civilian population.
I disagree. It should be repeated. The reason we had a peaceful occupation of Germany is because the German population was utterly and completely demoralized and defeated. When you start a war you should expect to pay the consequences.
Yeah, that approach worked so well after the first world war. Wait, no. Putting large amounts of money into the reconstruction of western europe was what forged a stable peace.
No, you should have negotiated more. Make a few small concessions - allowing the emperor to remain in power, perhaps.
When you mobilize the entire resources of your nation to fight said war then the entire resources of your nation become legitimate targets.
Bollocks; and, I suspect, only said at all because your nation never had its civilian towns bombed.
Call it criminal all you want but we didn't start the war. We just ended it as quickly as possible.
(The US contribution to the war, particularly if measured in terms of lives lost, is relatively small, and it irritates me when you try and claim all the credit, but leaving that aside) No, the quickest way to end it would've been to surrender. Even given that the war needed to be thought, do you really think Dresden/Kobe/Hirishima/Nagasaki shortened the war any? Did they save more lives than they cost? They didn't succeed in halting industrial production (in at least one case planes were being put together in fields, under canvas, the very next day); they seem to have been more about killing and demoralizing than war effectiveness.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think the war needed to be fought, and I understand that those at the time had been through years of hell and didn't have the benefit of our hindsight and rationality. But for the sake of trying to prevent it happening again, it needs to be said: the deliberate bombing of civilian populations that was done towards the end of the war (and it was largely the end of the war, the western front in Europe was fought relatively cleanly for most of the war, and the attacks on civilians in eastern europe and china (which, incidentally, don't for a moment think I don't condemn strongly; no major player in the war's hands are clean) were done by more conventional methods)was wrong, even in wartime, and should not be repeated.
They no longer have the production facilities - why would they? They have 3000 spare shells and determined (correctly, it would seem) that they'd be unlikely to go through them before the ships were decomissioned. But the plans still exist; if they needed them they could build a new factory to make them.
My lord, are you actually suggesting that the reason there's been peace in Europe is US troops?
Uh, see which power Japan chose to surrender to.
And even if I didn't, hopping onto newegg using my 'phone or the local library would still be quicker and easier than trying to find one in a physical shop.
Lies. Philosophy is just mathematics done without the rigour.
Time and again that has been seen to occur; consider compulsory purchase. But to answer your strawman, even the most fervent anti-copyright activist wouldn't deny the right to keep private, unpublished work unreleased. It's merely that once you publish a work, it's unreasonable to nod expect it to be copied, archived and all the rest of it.
Your experience is not everything. I suspect that phrase is the first Japanese sentence many people learn (certainly was for me), simply because it's repeated, with exactly the same phrasing, so many times. You don't need to understand the language; any sound can be remembered after so many repetitions.
"Immune to viruses"? Bollocks. If you were talking about OpenBSD you might have something (although even there I'd question you), but to claim that for OSX is just idiocy.
And yeah, an X11 keylogger should be doable, but you shouldn't be becoming root inside X11, ever.
More like sheer luck. IBM didn't open it up as a selling point, they did it because they'd been caught on the hop and didn't have time to retool their factories.
The real punchline would be if this was actually kde4 running on windows.
4.3 is fine. As a long term KDE user I was very pissed off at the team over 4.0/1, but 4.2 seems to be a good, working release. There are still some rough edges - as you'd expect from a .0 release, perhaps - but there are also welcome new features.
Amusingly enough, that's something that doesn't work for me in Vista. (Asus A730W if anyone's had any luck. *Used* to work beautifully under synce, but now they've changed to some incompatible HAL lark and that doesn't work either. Sigh.)
I wasn't saying it wouldn't affect the bat population; I was trying to subtly/amusingly point out that you'd used the wrong word.
I'm sure it'd effect the bat population.
What, all by itself?