Or, heck, look at the banana. In fact, yes, contemplate the banana.
Is it really sustainable to say that the banana is not intrinsically comic? I've sometimes thought that maybe there are objective criteria for what is funny, and that perhaps close investigation of the banana might yield some clues. I find the duck-billed platypus bizarre, but not comic. But bananas always make me smile.
I'm afraid I have not much more than passing familiarity with the church that owns the newspaper. A quick google search has confirmed to me that such incidents have happened - the question remains if this is the norm. It might, indeed, be cult-like.
I've seen a little bit of the Christian Scientists since I'm an occasional freelance organist. Obviously not enough to be representative, but FWIW, speaking as a complete outsider, (1) as far as doctrine goes they're a little bit on the wacko side, but not very far; (2) the congregations seem to be mostly made up of little old ladies (even more than other Christian sects); (3) the people I have met tend to be extremely nice, and not preachy; (4) they have the most depressing and boring hymns in the universe.
So basically OK, as Christians go, I guess. I wouldn't hang around there for a fun time but I don't regard them as a menace to society like some denominations.
Oh yes. I'd save them up throughout the game so I'd have about 20 bunnies to stick in that fan. The music was the Ride of the Valkyries (homage, at least in part, to the "Kill the Wabbit" Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd sings Wagner -- also, I found out not too long ago, the subject of an Ozzie Osbourne remake).
Yes, I'm sure the French PM is bombarded with people waving petitions holding over 160,000 signatures every minute of every day.
Of course in some countries you can force a general referendum, on any issue, if you can collect signatures amounting to 2.76% of the population. Unfortunately RMS only got 2.59% of the French population...
How 'bout that? I could have sworn I've seen it spelt the other way too. The root naucum is much, much rarer than pauci, so I claim that as my excuse and beg your pardon for my mistaken assumption. Though I can't help wondering if there is a textual variant floating around somewhere.
In an interview, plaintiff's lawyer Pettinato says, "I'm going to comply with the court's order to the letter." Defense lawyer Craig did not respond to a phone message...
It's not just the US. In the UK the ministry for domestic affairs is the "Home Office" -- though that's more to do with past imperialism than present nationalism.
... the world is more and more looking at US as an international bully. Little do they realise that the government is playing the big bully on the people in US as well...
No no, that's quite obvious to those of us in the rest of the world.
We of course have our own restrictions, and biases, depending on where in the world we live; but it's still pretty obvious. For example, it's kinda hard not to notice the complications involved if one's flight route involves passing through US territory; plus we get international news (which, for all I know, may be more than many people in the US get). Not that I mean any offence to you or your country. The USA has always been a yardstick for measuring freedom; and it still is today, -- just not always in a good way.
Yours is also a valid point. In terms of intrinsic security I don't see much of an advantage either way; while it's theoretically possible to find a vulnerability in OSS that somehow no one else has ever discovered, it's also the case that if someone finds a vulnerability in closed-source software, they're not allowed to report it, so it never gets fixed. There are other issues with proprietary/closed source software, but I think that's the biggest one at present.
Single-issue candidates can always stir emotions, but they rarely can do anything worth while on other issues... Which candidate for the job will do the least damage to you overall is the way to go.
Your viewpoint is very robust and works well in a place where the electoral system leads to a "winner-takes-all" kind of government. In places that have some form of proportional representation, the situation is very different and usually leads to a situation where no one party has complete control, and most parties have a say. (Personally I approve of this, on the principle that a good government is a weak government.)
In a broader way I think it is part of a much wider process of social change. I am not a techie; I am capable of installing an OS if the installation holds my hand through the process, but that's about the limit of my capabilities (I read/. out of interest, not professional interest, if that's a useful distinction). But, as a dumb home-user/end-user, I think I would always choose the FOSS option over the proprietary option, and I encourage my students to do the same. Not because of technical superiority: how would I know? FOSS and commercial proprietary software are generally pretty similar in their capabilities and quality. Rather, for reasons pretty close to the ones you reject.
See, I'm not one of the technical elite who can modify source code to do what I want. But -- I can report bugs. I have done so many times, and it is extremely empowering to know that that it is possible, that someone will pay attention, and that it has an effect, and that if you get things wrong someone will probably teach you how to get it right. One time I tried to report a bug to Microsoft; I gave up after half an hour, because unless you know exactly where to go before you begin, it's actually quite difficult to find a bug-reporting mechanism. Later on I found it, only to find that you have to have a Passport account to report a bug. I just checked and you still have to have a Passport account. Who has a Passport account?? Basically, I figured, Microsoft doesn't want to hear about problems with their software.
This difference in attitude has made me feel awfully insecure about using software that runs on proprietary/secret code. There are broader reasons as well: open standards like OpenDocument are a far more immediate incentive to use software that supports those open standards. I can't count the hours I've spent converting my files from archaic Word formats to later Word formats -- not to mention the countless hours explaining to colleagues and students how to do exactly the same. Now that is a very pressing and immediate problem that is faced by everyone who comes into contact with computers, no matter how technically capable they may or may not be. But now I know I'll almost certainly never have to do that again.
So, there are the reasons (of someone who doesn't work in IT and who has fairly limited computer skills compared to most who read/.) why I will probably always choose FOSS, other things being equal. And for most purposes, other things usually are equal. Even without being able to edit the source code myself, and without having the money to hire someone else to do it, it's obvious to me that it's a better way for things to work.
Actually, most people I know don't consider "Total Cost of Ownership." That's a term made up by Microsoft...
The IT services department at the university where I work did consider precisely that, specifically and explicitly, using that exact phrase, and chomped on the MS bait -- hook, line, and sinker. And, purely by-the-by, now they specifically and explicitly refuse to support Linux or BSD. (Oh, they support OS X; that's somehow "OK" -- it's just Linux that's not "OK". I wonder what kind of dealing went on to ensure that little distinction.)
How does using open source software mean that anyone can change it? What, you think any member of the public can log on to a government server as root and start changing stuff?
Passengers don't take crap anymore -- just like the passengers on Flight 93 when they learned of their possible fate.
I'd like to believe that, but consider the things that every single passenger quite happily puts up with whenever s/he gets on a plane. I can't help but think that passengers will take just about as much crap as can be thrown at them.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, heck, look at the banana. In fact, yes, contemplate the banana.
Is it really sustainable to say that the banana is not intrinsically comic? I've sometimes thought that maybe there are objective criteria for what is funny, and that perhaps close investigation of the banana might yield some clues. I find the duck-billed platypus bizarre, but not comic. But bananas always make me smile.
I've seen a little bit of the Christian Scientists since I'm an occasional freelance organist. Obviously not enough to be representative, but FWIW, speaking as a complete outsider, (1) as far as doctrine goes they're a little bit on the wacko side, but not very far; (2) the congregations seem to be mostly made up of little old ladies (even more than other Christian sects); (3) the people I have met tend to be extremely nice, and not preachy; (4) they have the most depressing and boring hymns in the universe.
So basically OK, as Christians go, I guess. I wouldn't hang around there for a fun time but I don't regard them as a menace to society like some denominations.
Oh yes. I'd save them up throughout the game so I'd have about 20 bunnies to stick in that fan. The music was the Ride of the Valkyries (homage, at least in part, to the "Kill the Wabbit" Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd sings Wagner -- also, I found out not too long ago, the subject of an Ozzie Osbourne remake).
Damn those decimal points! Er, commas. Damn them!
Yes, I'm sure the French PM is bombarded with people waving petitions holding over 160,000 signatures every minute of every day.
Of course in some countries you can force a general referendum, on any issue, if you can collect signatures amounting to 2.76% of the population. Unfortunately RMS only got 2.59% of the French population ...
The ideal thing to stick into a fan whizzing around is in fact a cute ickle battery-powered bunny rabbit.
How 'bout that? I could have sworn I've seen it spelt the other way too. The root naucum is much, much rarer than pauci, so I claim that as my excuse and beg your pardon for my mistaken assumption. Though I can't help wondering if there is a textual variant floating around somewhere.
Pssst -- :s/senito/sentio/g
Perhaps. We'll see. From TFA:
OT: in relation to your sig, what if you can't spell floccipaucinihilipilification?
I quote:
It's not just the US. In the UK the ministry for domestic affairs is the "Home Office" -- though that's more to do with past imperialism than present nationalism.
No no, that's quite obvious to those of us in the rest of the world.
We of course have our own restrictions, and biases, depending on where in the world we live; but it's still pretty obvious. For example, it's kinda hard not to notice the complications involved if one's flight route involves passing through US territory; plus we get international news (which, for all I know, may be more than many people in the US get). Not that I mean any offence to you or your country. The USA has always been a yardstick for measuring freedom; and it still is today, -- just not always in a good way.
Count now standing at 137,116.
Nonono, the correct reply is "How appropriate, you fight like a cow."
Yours is also a valid point. In terms of intrinsic security I don't see much of an advantage either way; while it's theoretically possible to find a vulnerability in OSS that somehow no one else has ever discovered, it's also the case that if someone finds a vulnerability in closed-source software, they're not allowed to report it, so it never gets fixed. There are other issues with proprietary/closed source software, but I think that's the biggest one at present.
Your viewpoint is very robust and works well in a place where the electoral system leads to a "winner-takes-all" kind of government. In places that have some form of proportional representation, the situation is very different and usually leads to a situation where no one party has complete control, and most parties have a say. (Personally I approve of this, on the principle that a good government is a weak government.)
Ummm, I don't buy that bit, but the rest of your argument is both interesting and informative.
In a broader way I think it is part of a much wider process of social change. I am not a techie; I am capable of installing an OS if the installation holds my hand through the process, but that's about the limit of my capabilities (I read /. out of interest, not professional interest, if that's a useful distinction). But, as a dumb home-user/end-user, I think I would always choose the FOSS option over the proprietary option, and I encourage my students to do the same. Not because of technical superiority: how would I know? FOSS and commercial proprietary software are generally pretty similar in their capabilities and quality. Rather, for reasons pretty close to the ones you reject.
See, I'm not one of the technical elite who can modify source code to do what I want. But -- I can report bugs. I have done so many times, and it is extremely empowering to know that that it is possible, that someone will pay attention, and that it has an effect, and that if you get things wrong someone will probably teach you how to get it right. One time I tried to report a bug to Microsoft; I gave up after half an hour, because unless you know exactly where to go before you begin, it's actually quite difficult to find a bug-reporting mechanism. Later on I found it, only to find that you have to have a Passport account to report a bug. I just checked and you still have to have a Passport account. Who has a Passport account?? Basically, I figured, Microsoft doesn't want to hear about problems with their software.
This difference in attitude has made me feel awfully insecure about using software that runs on proprietary/secret code. There are broader reasons as well: open standards like OpenDocument are a far more immediate incentive to use software that supports those open standards. I can't count the hours I've spent converting my files from archaic Word formats to later Word formats -- not to mention the countless hours explaining to colleagues and students how to do exactly the same. Now that is a very pressing and immediate problem that is faced by everyone who comes into contact with computers, no matter how technically capable they may or may not be. But now I know I'll almost certainly never have to do that again.
So, there are the reasons (of someone who doesn't work in IT and who has fairly limited computer skills compared to most who read /.) why I will probably always choose FOSS, other things being equal. And for most purposes, other things usually are equal. Even without being able to edit the source code myself, and without having the money to hire someone else to do it, it's obvious to me that it's a better way for things to work.
Someone mod parent insightful. That is a damn good question.
The IT services department at the university where I work did consider precisely that, specifically and explicitly, using that exact phrase, and chomped on the MS bait -- hook, line, and sinker. And, purely by-the-by, now they specifically and explicitly refuse to support Linux or BSD. (Oh, they support OS X; that's somehow "OK" -- it's just Linux that's not "OK". I wonder what kind of dealing went on to ensure that little distinction.)
How does using open source software mean that anyone can change it? What, you think any member of the public can log on to a government server as root and start changing stuff?
Ummmm ... some US airlines like to make money flying passengers from Europe to the US, too.
I'd like to believe that, but consider the things that every single passenger quite happily puts up with whenever s/he gets on a plane. I can't help but think that passengers will take just about as much crap as can be thrown at them.
Hmmm ... sounds kinda like the Slashdot moderator system.