Does anyone have experience with Linspire? I use gentoo myself, but it isn't a very good distro for convincing someone to move off windows;). Linspire and Xandros seem to be the most n00b-focussed distros, so I wonder if anyone has tried them both and compared them.
Does anyone have figures for the tax rates in the US before and after Bush's cuts? In Australia, the (progressive) taxes range from 0% for the first $6000 to 47% for every dollar above $60000 (or somewhere around that). What were the American rates before and after the cuts? I have seen lots of people arguing over whether Bush has cut taxes for the rich with very few hard figures.
So a remote controlled rifle, not being a useful militia weapon, should be banned based on US v. Miller?
Not necessarily. However, US v. Miller makes it clear that the Constitution doesn't prevent the banning of remote controlled rifles. I would argue that the remote controlled rifle has no purpose except to slaughter animals for fun. You don't get to take the animal home and eat it, it can't be good weapons training to shoot an animal over the internet, it's useless for self-defense and you don't even get any fresh air and exercise. As such, I wouldn't have a problem if this weapon were banned.
I'm not necessarily arguing that it should be banned, I was merely responding to GGP's assertion that the second amendment guarantees that this device will (and should) always be legal. On to more general issues:
And that is the root of the problem. Through all these endless weasel-word lawyer games people have completely lost sight of the basic philosophical principal upon which the right to bear arms is based: the people are the ultimate powerholders....An armed populace keeps each individual-- government agent and private citizen alike-- on an equal footing.
Ok, so we've established that guns shouldn't be banned. On the other hand, just because the government has access to a weapon doesn't mean it should be available to citizens. Powerful explosives and nuclear weapons are two examples. The problem here is that powerful weapons can be devastating in the wrong hands. Even if we were all armed and had the proper training, a nutcase could pull out an automatic assault weapon in a crowded place and kill many people before anyone could respond. In another example, although the wide availability of guns can prevent police from abusing their power, it can also prevent them from effectively doing their job. For these reasons, I think that some restrictions on guns are valid. Not that powerful guns should necessarily be banned, but that there should be should be appropriate restrictions on their availablility and use. The scope of these restrictions is, in my mind, up for debate.
To summarise: guns should not be banned because their legality curbs government power. Guns should not be completely unrestricted because the potential for abuse is too great. The question (for me, at least) is where the line should be drawn.
The constitution mentions the importance of a well regulated militia. This leaves open the possiblity of regulation, which could go as far as banning certain types of weapons in certain cases. It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is illegal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
US vs. Miller set a precedent that not all weapons can be considered necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia. "[I]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I would contend that the same remark could be made about a remote-controlled internet weapon.
This, of course, assumes that militias are still relevant in the modern US, something about which I am not convinced.
I agree that the humans looked a bit fake. They reminded me a bit of shrek. Nevertheless, they looked much more solid and 3d than the screenshots linked above. Of course, Doom 3 screenshots didn't do the game justice so its possible that the screenshots above are selling HL2 short.
True, but fraud is how he (and most spammers) made money. The precedent is about tracking and prosecuting spammers for fraud. Had he been selling a legitimate product, he wouldn't be quite so rich.
The significance of this case is that it applies a fairly harsh penalty for spamming. Of course it won't eliminate spam, but it will probably (hopefully) make spammers more aware of the consequences.
Imagine if you can work 1 year without getting caught
Imagine if you could work your whole life without getting caught. Because that was the situation before this verdict. Of course there are still strong financial incentives to spam, but with verdicts like this one, the incentives become weaker.
Yeah, too bad all they've managed to do is crash a rocket. Who here wishes Carmack would stop trying to bloody build rockets and code some more violent games?
Yeah. I wasn't having a good day;). Actually, I'd be better off with :(){while true;do:|:&done};:
But it doesn't look as cool with all those silly letters in there:P
aleph-0 probably. The sum one is easy; it's a countable sum of finite numbers so if you looked at it as a union of sets, it would be countably infinite. I'm not too sure about the product one, but I think that the countable direct product of finite sets is countable, which would make the product of countably many numbers countably infinite.
Yeah, you're right. I wasn't declaring myself a winner, though, because I hadn't been involved in that thread before then. I was merely trying to point out that ONOIML8 had chosen a bad analogy. The page you sent me too also has this to say:
There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
which isn't actually part of Godwin's law but is kind of related. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Because you disagree with my opinion it is "stupid and pointless" and you need to quote some "law" rather than debate the point.
The idea behind Godwin's law is that any comparison involving Hitler is likely to be overblown. I invoked the law in an effort to show you that your analogy was an overreaction without writing hundreds of words explaining why. It doesn't appear to have worked.
You believe that I am equating environmental controls with military surrender because you have not read this thread of the discussion.
Let's review. You said that GWB should act in the best interest of the US when in comes to ratification of the Kyoto protocol. AC disagreed with you. Then you brought up Churchill and compared his actions (in the interest of the UK) fighting Hitler to GWB's actions (in the interest of the US) in not ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Here we have the implication that the possible job losses from environmental regulations are as serious as war and genocide.
And you might not prefer the companionship of your fellow man if that man threatened your life
Why must you keep talking about loss of life? The article is about the KYOTO PROTOCOL. The argument is about whether GWB should act in the US's immediate interest with respect to ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. Why do you INSIST on comparing this to warfare and loss of life? I have spent my last three posts trying to covince you that this analogy is stupid. If you haven't got it yet then I'm ready to give up.
If you had read it you would know that we were discussing leaders actions in the interests of the people and country they are at the helm of...
...with respect to the economy and environmental regulations. Not with respect to military surrender. Until you jumped in with your brain-dead analogy, at least.
The idea behind Godwin's law is to discourage stupid and pointless comparisons like the one you made. Your point is invalid because your comparision is so pointless. Let's examine some analogies.
If someone I knew asked me to kill myself so he could win a bet, I would refuse. This is an example of me working in my own self interest.
If someone I knew asked me for a favour that would inconvenience me slightly, I would probably accept. This is an example of me working against my (immediate) self interest
If you asked me for a favour that would inconvenience me slightly, I would refuse. This is an example of me being turned away because of how self-centred you are.
The reason your Hitler/Stalin analogy is stupid is because you are equating environmental controls with military surrender and submission to genocide. That's like saying I shouldn't accept in example number 2 because I wouldn't kill myself in example number 1.
And your comment about thinking of oneself.....we all know how important the feelings of ones peers are to survival.
We are social creatures. You can go off and live in isolation if you want, but I prefer the companionship of my fellow man (and woman).
Yes, Galileo and Socrates were right. They also weren't in the majority. Let's do a time-delayed replay:
You: You've got a lot of balls calling the majority stupid. [What about] Socrates and Galileo?
Me: IIRC, Socrates and Galileo were both in the minority
You were trying to make the point that we shouldn't call people stupid if they are in the majority. And you gave 2 examples in which the majority were wrong.
OMG, I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with a Bush supporter;-). Just goes to show how much flaming and lack of serious discussion there is (on both sides, of course).
We still disagree on one thing, however. Namely, I don't think invading Iraq was a good first step towards setting up a functioning democracy there. By invading Iraq, the US has built up a lot of anti-American sentiment among Iraqis. Although it would be nice, I can't see a popularly elected Iraqi government being well-disposed to the West. Furthermore, if the aim is to replace a fundamentalist Islamist state with a democracy, Iraq was a pretty silly choice because it wasn't a religious state. Why not support the reform movement in Iran instead? The Ayatollahs there are already beginning to allow a little bit of freedom; why not give them positive reinforcement instead of threatening them by invading their neighbour pre-emptively?
There are many less intrusive ways of establishing a democracy. In Burma, diplomatic pressure helped Aung San Suu Kyi's democracy movement immensely (it's too bad that diplomatic pressure disappeared after 9/11 because the democracy movement has been swept under the rug since then).
Saddam Hussein was a corrupt dictator and he did what corrupt dictators do best (be corrupt). I'm sure the US could have offered him some sweet deals on the side in exchange for a gradual loosening of his power. Anyway, this is all speculation. The difference of opinion here seems to be that you think the occupation of Iraq might lead to a stable democracy. I think it won't, and that there are better ways to bring about freedom for people under oppressive regimes. I guess only time will tell.
I voted for Bush because of his stance on the war on Islamic fascism. Terrorism is their method, but it's not their method we're fighting...it's their culture and ideology. I voted for Bush because I don't think Kerry understands the nature of the problem or how to correct it. I think George Bush does.
I've heard this argument quite a bit. The problem I have with it is that it makes that assumption that war can be a successful method of fighting terror. Can you provide a 20th century example in which war succeeded in stopping terrorism?
Because I can name several examples in which it hasn't. I even have an example in which negotiations (ie. being soft on terror) have succeeded:
Ireland - terror ended through negotiations
Israel - regular terrorist attacks continue despite 50 years of war
Sri Lanka - War didn't defeat the Tamil Tigers; negotiations/ceasefire are progressing
Colombia - terrorism shows no signs of stopping despite huge military expenditure
Can you name an example in which military force has worked? I'm restricting this to the 20th/21st century here because methods of warfare and terrorism have changed dramatically since the days of the Barbary Pirates.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone have experience with Linspire? I use gentoo myself, but it isn't a very good distro for convincing someone to move off windows ;). Linspire and Xandros seem to be the most n00b-focussed distros, so I wonder if anyone has tried them both and compared them.
buy-ro
Does anyone have figures for the tax rates in the US before and after Bush's cuts? In Australia, the (progressive) taxes range from 0% for the first $6000 to 47% for every dollar above $60000 (or somewhere around that). What were the American rates before and after the cuts? I have seen lots of people arguing over whether Bush has cut taxes for the rich with very few hard figures.
So a remote controlled rifle, not being a useful militia weapon, should be banned based on US v. Miller?
Not necessarily. However, US v. Miller makes it clear that the Constitution doesn't prevent the banning of remote controlled rifles. I would argue that the remote controlled rifle has no purpose except to slaughter animals for fun. You don't get to take the animal home and eat it, it can't be good weapons training to shoot an animal over the internet, it's useless for self-defense and you don't even get any fresh air and exercise. As such, I wouldn't have a problem if this weapon were banned.
I'm not necessarily arguing that it should be banned, I was merely responding to GGP's assertion that the second amendment guarantees that this device will (and should) always be legal. On to more general issues:
And that is the root of the problem. Through all these endless weasel-word lawyer games people have completely lost sight of the basic philosophical principal upon which the right to bear arms is based: the people are the ultimate powerholders....An armed populace keeps each individual-- government agent and private citizen alike-- on an equal footing.
Ok, so we've established that guns shouldn't be banned. On the other hand, just because the government has access to a weapon doesn't mean it should be available to citizens. Powerful explosives and nuclear weapons are two examples. The problem here is that powerful weapons can be devastating in the wrong hands. Even if we were all armed and had the proper training, a nutcase could pull out an automatic assault weapon in a crowded place and kill many people before anyone could respond. In another example, although the wide availability of guns can prevent police from abusing their power, it can also prevent them from effectively doing their job. For these reasons, I think that some restrictions on guns are valid. Not that powerful guns should necessarily be banned, but that there should be should be appropriate restrictions on their availablility and use. The scope of these restrictions is, in my mind, up for debate.
To summarise: guns should not be banned because their legality curbs government power. Guns should not be completely unrestricted because the potential for abuse is too great. The question (for me, at least) is where the line should be drawn.
I saw a letter he wrote yesterday about being seriously ill that I posted today, but was rejected
And a bloody good thing too, because we all know how people react to dupes.
A couple points:
The constitution mentions the importance of a well regulated militia. This leaves open the possiblity of regulation, which could go as far as banning certain types of weapons in certain cases. It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is illegal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
US vs. Miller set a precedent that not all weapons can be considered necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia. "[I]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I would contend that the same remark could be made about a remote-controlled internet weapon.
This, of course, assumes that militias are still relevant in the modern US, something about which I am not convinced.
I agree that the humans looked a bit fake. They reminded me a bit of shrek. Nevertheless, they looked much more solid and 3d than the screenshots linked above. Of course, Doom 3 screenshots didn't do the game justice so its possible that the screenshots above are selling HL2 short.
Water looks sweet, but the humans look a bit flat compared with the dynamic shadowy bump-mapped goodness of Doom 3.
Maybe I'm just biased because this bloody game is Windows-only.
If the agents ever managed to land on the same spot as Mr. X, then the agents won. If the agents ran out of tokens first, then the agents won.
;)
So Mr. X gets the short end of the deal, then?
Yes, but I think that the point of my original post still stands. Just 's/spamming/fraudsters who spam/'.
True, but fraud is how he (and most spammers) made money. The precedent is about tracking and prosecuting spammers for fraud. Had he been selling a legitimate product, he wouldn't be quite so rich.
The significance of this case is that it applies a fairly harsh penalty for spamming. Of course it won't eliminate spam, but it will probably (hopefully) make spammers more aware of the consequences.
Imagine if you can work 1 year without getting caught
Imagine if you could work your whole life without getting caught. Because that was the situation before this verdict. Of course there are still strong financial incentives to spam, but with verdicts like this one, the incentives become weaker.
He has his own spaceship company!
Yeah, too bad all they've managed to do is crash a rocket. Who here wishes Carmack would stop trying to bloody build rockets and code some more violent games?
*raises hand*
Yeah. I wasn't having a good day ;). Actually, I'd be better off with
:(){while true;do:|:&done};: :P
But it doesn't look as cool with all those silly letters in there
Um, yes, of course. If you double the speed of something, it doesn't have any effect.
\end{sarcasm}
It doesn't change how well the algorithm scales, but it does speed up the algorithm.
aleph-0 probably. The sum one is easy; it's a countable sum of finite numbers so if you looked at it as a union of sets, it would be countably infinite. I'm not too sure about the product one, but I think that the countable direct product of finite sets is countable, which would make the product of countably many numbers countably infinite.
I am listening.
I may well be an idiot.
I am in the minority.
So were Socrates and Galileo (your example, not mine).
And heck, they were right.
So remind me again why we should never accuse the majority of being wrong.
Yeah, you're right. I wasn't declaring myself a winner, though, because I hadn't been involved in that thread before then. I was merely trying to point out that ONOIML8 had chosen a bad analogy. The page you sent me too also has this to say:
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
which isn't actually part of Godwin's law but is kind of related. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Because you disagree with my opinion it is "stupid and pointless" and you need to quote some "law" rather than debate the point.
...with respect to the economy and environmental regulations. Not with respect to military surrender. Until you jumped in with your brain-dead analogy, at least.
The idea behind Godwin's law is that any comparison involving Hitler is likely to be overblown. I invoked the law in an effort to show you that your analogy was an overreaction without writing hundreds of words explaining why. It doesn't appear to have worked.
You believe that I am equating environmental controls with military surrender because you have not read this thread of the discussion.
Let's review. You said that GWB should act in the best interest of the US when in comes to ratification of the Kyoto protocol. AC disagreed with you. Then you brought up Churchill and compared his actions (in the interest of the UK) fighting Hitler to GWB's actions (in the interest of the US) in not ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Here we have the implication that the possible job losses from environmental regulations are as serious as war and genocide.
And you might not prefer the companionship of your fellow man if that man threatened your life
Why must you keep talking about loss of life? The article is about the KYOTO PROTOCOL. The argument is about whether GWB should act in the US's immediate interest with respect to ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. Why do you INSIST on comparing this to warfare and loss of life? I have spent my last three posts trying to covince you that this analogy is stupid. If you haven't got it yet then I'm ready to give up.
If you had read it you would know that we were discussing leaders actions in the interests of the people and country they are at the helm of...
The reason your Hitler/Stalin analogy is stupid is because you are equating environmental controls with military surrender and submission to genocide. That's like saying I shouldn't accept in example number 2 because I wouldn't kill myself in example number 1.
And your comment about thinking of oneself.....we all know how important the feelings of ones peers are to survival.
We are social creatures. You can go off and live in isolation if you want, but I prefer the companionship of my fellow man (and woman).
Your comparison between war and greenhouse gasses is silly. Furthermore, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
I think you will also find that thinking only of yourself causes other people to dislike you. Just a bit of personal advice.
They were right and they still got flogged.
Yes, Galileo and Socrates were right. They also weren't in the majority. Let's do a time-delayed replay:
You: You've got a lot of balls calling the majority stupid. [What about] Socrates and Galileo?
Me: IIRC, Socrates and Galileo were both in the minority
You were trying to make the point that we shouldn't call people stupid if they are in the majority. And you gave 2 examples in which the majority were wrong.
I gues logic isn't your strong point.
No, you're right.
;-). Just goes to show how much flaming and lack of serious discussion there is (on both sides, of course).
OMG, I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with a Bush supporter
We still disagree on one thing, however. Namely, I don't think invading Iraq was a good first step towards setting up a functioning democracy there. By invading Iraq, the US has built up a lot of anti-American sentiment among Iraqis. Although it would be nice, I can't see a popularly elected Iraqi government being well-disposed to the West. Furthermore, if the aim is to replace a fundamentalist Islamist state with a democracy, Iraq was a pretty silly choice because it wasn't a religious state. Why not support the reform movement in Iran instead? The Ayatollahs there are already beginning to allow a little bit of freedom; why not give them positive reinforcement instead of threatening them by invading their neighbour pre-emptively?
There are many less intrusive ways of establishing a democracy. In Burma, diplomatic pressure helped Aung San Suu Kyi's democracy movement immensely (it's too bad that diplomatic pressure disappeared after 9/11 because the democracy movement has been swept under the rug since then).
Saddam Hussein was a corrupt dictator and he did what corrupt dictators do best (be corrupt). I'm sure the US could have offered him some sweet deals on the side in exchange for a gradual loosening of his power. Anyway, this is all speculation. The difference of opinion here seems to be that you think the occupation of Iraq might lead to a stable democracy. I think it won't, and that there are better ways to bring about freedom for people under oppressive regimes. I guess only time will tell.
I voted for Bush because of his stance on the war on Islamic fascism. Terrorism is their method, but it's not their method we're fighting...it's their culture and ideology. I voted for Bush because I don't think Kerry understands the nature of the problem or how to correct it. I think George Bush does.
I've heard this argument quite a bit. The problem I have with it is that it makes that assumption that war can be a successful method of fighting terror. Can you provide a 20th century example in which war succeeded in stopping terrorism?
Because I can name several examples in which it hasn't. I even have an example in which negotiations (ie. being soft on terror) have succeeded:
Ireland - terror ended through negotiations
Israel - regular terrorist attacks continue despite 50 years of war
Sri Lanka - War didn't defeat the Tamil Tigers; negotiations/ceasefire are progressing
Colombia - terrorism shows no signs of stopping despite huge military expenditure
Can you name an example in which military force has worked? I'm restricting this to the 20th/21st century here because methods of warfare and terrorism have changed dramatically since the days of the Barbary Pirates.
Oops, not linear. Nevertheless, my exponent is bigger than yours :)