Kind of makes me skeptical of claims that only Republicans are lapdogs for Big Business.
Where did you hear that crazy shit? All the politicians are lapdogs for big business that should be obvious to anybody with a scrap of sense at this point.
The Dems are (generally) in the pocket of the entertainment industry who get stupid shit like this and the DMCA passed.
The Republicans are (generally) in the pocket of the energy and weapons industries who get millions of people killed to jack up profits and in the pocket of crazed religious groups who want religious law in America.
Granted they are both scumbags, but the results of the Republicans' treason are far worse than that of the Democrats' treason. So far.
As for the war on terror being a waste of time, would you much rather that instead of sending our army out to kill the terrorists in their countries, we instead wait for them to come here and kill more innocent people? I wouldn't.
Wow, I must have missed the announcement that we invaded Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
If we actually were killing terrorists in their countries you would have a point. As that is not the case, you don't.
Can someone explain why allowing one company to own newspaper and TV in the same area is bad?
The problem with media consolidation is apparent by looking at the current state. There are a only a couple of TV news networks which are nationwide. This means that if somebody, say for example, the Saudi Arabian government wants to suppress stories which make them look bad they only have to buy off a couple of people to do so.
This happened just recently. Have you noticed the barrage of commercials that have been airing recently saying basically, be nice to us we own a huge chunk of your country?
Now, given that corporate officers sole responsibility is to "enhance shareholder value", they would open themselves up to lawsuits, if they did accurate reporting on the Saudis since that would be throwing away about $100,000,000 in ad revenue.
Given that the Saudis are the primary funders, supporters, and suppliers of terrorists that is far more newsworthy than anything else they report, but you don't see it.
If they had to deal individually with a whole group of people, then it's far more likely that one or more of them would have a scrap of integrity and/or a scrap of patriotism, unlike any of our big news companies.
Fox news takes a lot of heat because they are just a mouthpiece for the administration, but the others aren't much better. It isn't economically optimal for them to report the news accurately, and investigative journalism is basically dead in America.
That, my friend, is one of the clearest signs possible that this country is degenerating into Fascism which is the merger of state and corporate power.
All the suggar is a problem. This of cause is also a moral question. Is it really coca colas problem how people use their product.
Actually, Coke hasn't had any sugar in it for years in the US. Remember New Coke how it sucked and how they switched back? Well, they only sort of switched back. They replaced sugar with high fructose corn syrup which is far far worse for you than sugar.
Now, in Mexico, HFCS is illegal. This is most likely a protectionist move for their sugar industry, but it means that Mexican Coke tastes different than American Coke. I and everybody else I know who has tried it likes it much better. If you have a Mexican supermarket in your area, give it a try some time.
We left Afghanistan? When? Can you tell that to my friend who's there right now? I think he'd like to come home (or get into Iraq) if we've truely ceased operations there.
The country is controlled by brutal warlords. There is no free democratic society. If our actions in Iraq were motivated in the least by a desire to help free the people as the chimp keeps lying about, then we certainly would have done so there first. We have a hell of a lot more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan even though Iraq was never any sort of threat to us. I thought that would have been clear.
And we didn't leave Afghanistan under a dictator. We got rid of the Taliban and then (with the U.N.) helped them hold elections.
No, we left them under several competing dictators.
look at years of U.N. resolutions that Saddam's government summarilly dismissed.
Apparently, he did not dismiss them. Otherwise, there would have been some WMDs in Iraq for us to find. But there aren't Besides, that is beside the point. The question was what is the difference that caused the Iraqi people to be so deserving of "freedom and liberty", yet the Afghani people have been left to the tender mercies of the brutal warlords who reinitiated the heroin trade as every person with a clue predicted before we even invaded.
Shrub duped idiotic people into believing Iraq was in some way involved with 9/11 which he, of course, wasn't. This was to justify an invasion which has had the intended affect of transferring the wealth of Americans to his friend's companies.
Remain in denial over that blatantly obvious fact at everybody's peril.
Yeah - Bush has problems, but the course in Iraq was the right one to take.
Really. Why Iraq? Why not....say Afghanistan. We blew the shit out of them and then left them to rot. This even though they actually *did* harbor terrorists who attacked us. In fact, as far as we know the guy who really did attack us is still there but we gave up on it.
So explain to us, if you will, what makes the course in Iraq the "right" one, but that same course was wrong in Afghanistan.
Unless you can explain that, save the moral high horse. It's completely ridiculous given that we made up a bunch of lies as an excuse to go help those poor dear Iraqis while the legitimate target was left under dictatorial control.
others of us happen not to have a problem with someone ensuring that you can't copy their music without their permission. Some of us happen to believe people should have control over what they produce and they should be able to make a profit from their works. If you don't want to buy their work, don't. that's fine. But you should not be able to get your hands on their work if you don't pay.
Which has pretty much fuck all to do with the issue. I have a right to make a copy of my CD for my own purposes short of redistribution. DRM is designed to strip my rights away in order to allow a few corporations to increase profits. If there is ever a trade off to be made between a citizen's rights and corporate profit, then in a free society the decision must always be made in favor of the citizen. A society where it goes the other way is Fascist by definition.
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that Mormons aren't Christians. You can say they're good people, which they are, but they're no more Christian than Jews or Muslims.
I didn't miss it, but you really need to learn that just because you make a ridiculous assertion doesn't imply that other people have to treat it like it is sane. Mormons believe that Jesus was the son of god, hence they are Christians. If you don't like the way they practice it, then you could call them bad Christins, I suppose, but you'd be better off getting a life rather than slagging what makes other people happy. To say they are not Christians just makes you look like a crazy elitist zealot.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. It's possible that god himself came down and told you that. Other than that though, you have no more clue than anybody else what the truth is. If you had the courage to admit that, then you would be a much better person.
One of the major problems with your argument is that you have not even begun to attempt to provide anything more than a rant. Your entire point may be summed up as "I don't like Christians," or fundamentalists, if you prefer.
It wasn't an argument, it was basically a rant based on my own personal observations and experiences. The point was nothing against Christians, just those psychopathic wackos who feel that it's their job to shove their ignorant hatred down everybody else's throat. The fact that they claim (loudly) to be Christian is unfortunate for those who actually are decent Christians, since they tend to get lumped together at times.
When you refer to relgions as something "invented," you make your personal biases quite obvious.
Huh?!? Take a look at any religion in existance. At some point in the past that religion did not exist. (This is totally unrelated to whether or not the god and or gods in question exist or existed). Religions are always invented by humans whether or not the gods are. This isn't a difficult concept, nor does it show any bias whatsoever. It is a simple statement of a fact.
To call Mormons good Christians requires a complete lack of understanding of what a Christian is. A statement like that shows that lack far more than mine.
That said, true Christian principles DO hold that homosexuality is an ungodly lifestyle. However, this is at some level a choice the person has made (i do not deny that certain biological factors may contribute to one's tendency toward homosexuality, but one still has the choice). As a choice, this lifestyle does not define the person completely, and condemnation of the lifestyle does not imply condemnation of the individual.
Now this is complete and utter bullshit. Show me where Jesus (not some other old testament person) said that people who live and love in accordance with how god made them are ungodly. There are certain churches that teach this kind of ignorant hatred, but it certainly has nothing to do with Christianity as taught by Jesus. Saying that "true" Christian principles hold that to be true merely shows your prejudices. If your church teaches that, then how you could have the audacity to call some other Christian church non Christian is totally beyond me, but again that is the problem with fundamentalism. It discourages rational thought in favor of absolutism (We're right and everyone else is an evil sinner and not a Christian if they differ from our dogma on even a trivial issue).
In closing, I would just like to invite you and those of similar beliefs to have a more open mind on the subject, and to realise that your arguments are no less based on your beliefs and biases than anyone else's.
I have a very open mind about the subject. I do not appreciate it when people try to shove their beliefs down my throat. There is a huge difference between that and having a closed mind. Please note, that I am not saying that you tried to shove anything anywhere.
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative. He is a fundamentalist hate-mongering religious zealot intent on destroying the constitution and replacing it with a theocracy.
If you identify yourself with that kind of slime, then you are far worse than a neocon. You must despise everything this country stands for. The religious and other freedoms were put into the bill of rights specifically to prevent people like Buchanan from having their way with this country.
If you really want to live under religious law, please move to Saudi Arabia or some other place that practices it and then let's see what you think about it. Oh, you don't want to? Well think about why that is, and realize that that is what *always* happens with religious rule. It doesn't matter in the least which religion is ruling.
Being a good American doesn't mean living your life how you want, it means having the courage to allow others to do so. If you honestly believe that you have the right to tell people they can't live their lives their way because you don't like it then you are a very sick individual. If you don't believe that, then why the hell would you identify yourself with a piece of garbage like Buchanan?
...(both were aproached by beings of light that only they met, both claimed knowledge from a hidden source [Joseph Smith had tablets only he could read, Mohammed took dictation when he supposedly couldn't write],...
Basically the same thing applies to every other religion ever invented, including yours, if you have one. Of course, the fundamentalist wack jobs of whatever particular religion see that in all other religions, but ignore it regarding their own. This is one of the major problems with fundamentalism. The people who buy into it are incapable of dealing with reality. They can see the problems with everybody else's beliefs, but even though the problems with their own are essentially identical to those they see in others, they freak out and lose all rational capability when you point this out to them.
So Mormons are at least as good of Christians as any fundamentalist wacko branch. The Mormons I know are better people (and better Christians) than any fundamentalist I've ever met. All these gay hating, forcing prayer in the schools, institute religious law in America, psychopaths have no freaking clue what the hell the person they claim to follow even said, or they would realise when he said not to do all that crazy hatred bullshit that he was talking specifically to them and the rest of their ilk.
I wish I possessed your uncanny ability to flawlessly evaluate the character of anybody, anywhere, without ever having met them.
Perhaps you could propose some hypothetical mechanism by which it would be possible for anybody with access to the technology required to become a spammer to not know that it is one of the most hated "professions" around?
Unless you can, I don't think it is the least bit unreasonable to assume that anybody involved in the spam business has made a conscious decision to make their money by harassing people, selling fraudulent products, and actively interfering with people's ability to use ther own property for their own purposes.
Given these facts, I fail to see how the ability to evaluate the character of somebody who wears it on their sleeve like that is the least bit uncanny.
You see, it's not a question of assessing the character of "anyone anywhere", but that of a certain person who has proven himself to be lacking in basic decency.
Sounds like they have John Kerry working for them.
"I supported opening the source to Java, before I voted to keep it closed."
That example doesn't work. It would have to be more like, "I supported opening the source to Java because I was provided with falsified information. When the truth came out, the facts no longer supported that course of action, so I no longer supported it."
It's a little thing called integrity. Too bad our current president doesn't have any.
So you leave gnu tar out of this list then? (default output of gnu tar does not interoperate with other versions of tar).
I'm not sure about other versions, but the Solaris version of tar has been broken for years. Have an archive with nested directories? Too bad, if the path is too long (I forget how long, but not that long) it fails. This includes files I've downloaded from Sun. They recommend using GNU tar.
Since it's the version that works, I'd call that the standard.
This whole argument over whether Linus could possibly have written Linux reminds me of a quote from Bill Joy
If I had to rewrite Unix from scratch, I could do it in a summer, easily," says Joy. "And it would be much better. A much, much better job. The ideas are old."
No doubt, I wrote a complete *NIX kernel in 3 lines of perl. Granted, it isn't easy to read and I have to use a pentagram shaped xterm to view the code to keep demons from appearing but it works.
It is censorship if government pressure causes the private company to change its mind and not distribute it for no other reason than backlash from said government.
But what do you call it when said corporation chooses not to distribute it to curry favor with the government in the interest of (and/or thanks for) getting legislation passed which is more favorable to it than to the citizens?
Yea i've been going on a religious rant the past 2 days but like everyone else, when there beliefs/ideas get criticize to a great degree they feel the need to defend......
Too bad you only pay lip service to your beliefs, otherwisee you would have turned the other cheek.;-)
Right after you claim to be unbiased? Wow. I am not a patriot, I am a human.
Disliking a person because of specific statements they have made and actions they have taken has nothing at all to do with partizanship. There isn't a political bias to it at all.
I have never heard anyone in the administration claim that being against the war is treason, can you give me an example/quote?
"You're either with us or against us" -GWB
"To say that there should be no dissent is morally treasonous to the American people" -Teddy Roosevelt
So, anyone who is guilty should refuse a lawyer and condemn themselves to the worst possible punishment immediately, or they have no integrity. Or is that just when you don't like them?
Not at all. I have no idea how you got to that from what I said. Rush has repeatedly spoken out against "druggies" as worthless scum who should be put away. He is a druggie, hence integrity would demand him to apply his sickeningly flawed opinion to his situation. Either that, or admit he's full of shit.
If you take it for a fact that the war in Iraq is "evil," to convince anyone of anything, they have to already believe that.
I never said that it was "evil". The stated reason has been shown to be a lie. The new lie is that we're there to give them freedom and democracy. Well, the recent photos sure don't look like that. Given that between 50% and 90% (depending on which source you look at) of the people we put in prison in Iraq are not guilty of anything, our moral standing in the world is shit.
You're morally ambiguous............
I never claimed that I wasn't. Just making a point that, granted, was irrelevant.
I didn't realize we were kicking people out of their homes in Iraq.
If they had homes, they wouldn't be homeless. I thought that would be enough of a sign that I was making an anology based on your statement.
> Globalism and the mass priviatization of utilities is kicking the homeless out of their boxes.
Again, evidence?
Take a look at South America for a clear example. The IMF/World Bank have a 4 step policy when providing aid to poor countries. This involves selling off their utilities generally to foreign companies which takes control of the basic necessities of life from the people of that country. Water prices typically go up by 400% or more. Electricity as well. How could these policies have any affect besides keeping the people in poor countries poor?
Now, look at Venezuala. Chavez saw through that, refused the aid, nationalized the utilities and now compare them to Chile or Argentina.
They are an example of how by going against the policies of the IMF is actually much better for a developing nation. Of course that isn't good for the IMF/World Bank, so what happened? Bush sent in soldiers to aid in overthrowing a democratically elected leader.Luckilly, Chavez was tipped off and managed to videotape American soldiers aiding in a coup. His massive support among his people put him back in power within days.
> Bush only won the election because Jeb's Sec State illegally
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The election was won, get the fuck over it, the Democrats in Washington have, for the most part.
> You don't see that in the mainstream media though, do you?
Yes, actually I did. Until they pointed out that it was a blatant falsehood. JEB BUSH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE *DEMOCRAT* THAT RAN THE ELECTIONS AND MADE THAT REQUEST.
Dude. Not true. Kathleen Harris was Sec State. She ran the purge. Choicepoint was the company who provided the list and they have freaking admitted that it was totally inaccurate and they told Kathleen that it needed to be cleaned up. She refused. Those are the facts. There are still cases in court to try and get the voting rights back for these people.
Why should I ask someone without a business perspective what's good for business? Wouldn't this be like asking someone without a technical perspective what's good for technology?
Because the basis of patents is in The Constitution of The United States of America.
The sole reason patents are even allowed to exist at all, let alone for a limited time, is to promote the useful arts and sciences.
What's "good for business" is only relevant so far as it promotes the general welfare of We The People.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of makes me skeptical of claims that only Republicans are lapdogs for Big Business.
Where did you hear that crazy shit?
All the politicians are lapdogs for big business that should be obvious to anybody with a scrap of sense at this point.
The Dems are (generally) in the pocket of the entertainment industry who get stupid shit like this and the DMCA passed.
The Republicans are (generally) in the pocket of the energy and weapons industries who get millions of people killed to jack up profits and in the pocket of crazed religious groups who want religious law in America.
Granted they are both scumbags, but the results of the Republicans' treason are far worse than that of the Democrats' treason. So far.
As for the war on terror being a waste of time, would you much rather that instead of sending our army out to kill the terrorists in their countries, we instead wait for them to come here and kill more innocent people? I wouldn't.
Wow, I must have missed the announcement that we invaded Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
If we actually were killing terrorists in their countries you would have a point.
As that is not the case, you don't.
Maybe because flash photography can degrade a painting.
Are you kidding, or is this actually true?
If so, how does this work?
as an ocean engineer I feel compelled to point out that exploring the depths of the ocean is an assload harder than exploring space.
Yeah, but do you run into problems converting between imperial assloads and metric assloads?
Can someone explain why allowing one company to own newspaper and TV in the same area is bad?
The problem with media consolidation is apparent by looking at the current state.
There are a only a couple of TV news networks which are nationwide. This means that if somebody, say for example, the Saudi Arabian government wants to suppress stories which make them look bad they only have to buy off a couple of people to do so.
This happened just recently. Have you noticed the barrage of commercials that have been airing recently saying basically, be nice to us we own a huge chunk of your country?
Now, given that corporate officers sole responsibility is to "enhance shareholder value", they would open themselves up to lawsuits, if they did accurate reporting on the Saudis since that would be throwing away about $100,000,000 in ad revenue.
Given that the Saudis are the primary funders, supporters, and suppliers of terrorists that is far more newsworthy than anything else they report, but you don't see it.
If they had to deal individually with a whole group of people, then it's far more likely that one or more of them would have a scrap of integrity and/or a scrap of patriotism, unlike any of our big news companies.
Fox news takes a lot of heat because they are just a mouthpiece for the administration, but the others aren't much better. It isn't economically optimal for them to report the news accurately, and investigative journalism is basically dead in America.
That, my friend, is one of the clearest signs possible that this country is degenerating into Fascism which is the merger of state and corporate power.
All the suggar is a problem. This of cause is also a moral question. Is it really coca colas problem how people use their product.
Actually, Coke hasn't had any sugar in it for years in the US. Remember New Coke how it sucked and how they switched back? Well, they only sort of switched back. They replaced sugar with high fructose corn syrup which is far far worse for you than sugar.
Now, in Mexico, HFCS is illegal. This is most likely a protectionist move for their sugar industry, but it means that Mexican Coke tastes different than American Coke. I and everybody else I know who has tried it likes it much better.
If you have a Mexican supermarket in your area, give it a try some time.
We left Afghanistan? When? Can you tell that to my friend who's there right now? I think he'd like to come home (or get into Iraq) if we've truely ceased operations there.
The country is controlled by brutal warlords.
There is no free democratic society. If our actions in Iraq were motivated in the least by a desire to help free the people as the chimp keeps lying about, then we certainly would have done so there first. We have a hell of a lot more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan even though Iraq was never any sort of threat to us.
I thought that would have been clear.
And we didn't leave Afghanistan under a dictator. We got rid of the Taliban and then (with the U.N.) helped them hold elections.
No, we left them under several competing dictators.
look at years of U.N. resolutions that Saddam's government summarilly dismissed.
Apparently, he did not dismiss them. Otherwise, there would have been some WMDs in Iraq for us to find. But there aren't
Besides, that is beside the point. The question was what is the difference that caused the Iraqi people to be so deserving of "freedom and liberty", yet the Afghani people have been left to the tender mercies of the brutal warlords who reinitiated the heroin trade as every person with a clue predicted before we even invaded.
Shrub duped idiotic people into believing Iraq was in some way involved with 9/11 which he, of course, wasn't. This was to justify an invasion which has had the intended affect of transferring the wealth of Americans to his friend's companies.
Remain in denial over that blatantly obvious fact at everybody's peril.
Yeah - Bush has problems, but the course in Iraq was the right one to take.
Really.
Why Iraq? Why not....say Afghanistan. We blew the shit out of them and then left them to rot. This even though they actually *did* harbor terrorists who attacked us. In fact, as far as we know the guy who really did attack us is still there but we gave up on it.
So explain to us, if you will, what makes the course in Iraq the "right" one, but that same course was wrong in Afghanistan.
Unless you can explain that, save the moral high horse. It's completely ridiculous given that we made up a bunch of lies as an excuse to go help those poor dear Iraqis while the legitimate target was left under dictatorial control.
Oh yeah, and how's that heroin crop doing?
While not console exclusive,..... price of persia: sands of time, really are fantastic.
I'm thinking of getting this one.
Does anyone have a recommendation of PS2 vs PC for it?
others of us happen not to have a problem with someone ensuring that you can't copy their music without their permission. Some of us happen to believe people should have control over what they produce and they should be able to make a profit from their works. If you don't want to buy their work, don't. that's fine. But you should not be able to get your hands on their work if you don't pay.
Which has pretty much fuck all to do with the issue.
I have a right to make a copy of my CD for my own purposes short of redistribution.
DRM is designed to strip my rights away in order to allow a few corporations to increase profits.
If there is ever a trade off to be made between a citizen's rights and corporate profit, then in a free society the decision must always be made in favor of the citizen.
A society where it goes the other way is Fascist by definition.
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that Mormons aren't Christians. You can say they're good people, which they are, but they're no more Christian than Jews or Muslims.
I didn't miss it, but you really need to learn that just because you make a ridiculous assertion doesn't imply that other people have to treat it like it is sane.
Mormons believe that Jesus was the son of god, hence they are Christians. If you don't like the way they practice it, then you could call them bad Christins, I suppose, but you'd be better off getting a life rather than slagging what makes other people happy.
To say they are not Christians just makes you look like a crazy elitist zealot.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. It's possible that god himself came down and told you that.
Other than that though, you have no more clue than anybody else what the truth is. If you had the courage to admit that, then you would be a much better person.
One of the major problems with your argument is that you have not even begun to attempt to provide anything more than a rant. Your entire point may be summed up as "I don't like Christians," or fundamentalists, if you prefer.
It wasn't an argument, it was basically a rant based on my own personal observations and experiences.
The point was nothing against Christians, just those psychopathic wackos who feel that it's their job to shove their ignorant hatred down everybody else's throat. The fact that they claim (loudly) to be Christian is unfortunate for those who actually are decent Christians, since they tend to get lumped together at times.
When you refer to relgions as something "invented," you make your personal biases quite obvious.
Huh?!?
Take a look at any religion in existance. At some point in the past that religion did not exist. (This is totally unrelated to whether or not the god and or gods in question exist or existed). Religions are always invented by humans whether or not the gods are.
This isn't a difficult concept, nor does it show any bias whatsoever. It is a simple statement of a fact.
To call Mormons good Christians requires a complete lack of understanding of what a Christian is.
A statement like that shows that lack far more than mine.
That said, true Christian principles DO hold that homosexuality is an ungodly lifestyle. However, this is at some level a choice the person has made (i do not deny that certain biological factors may contribute to one's tendency toward homosexuality, but one still has the choice). As a choice, this lifestyle does not define the person completely, and condemnation of the lifestyle does not imply condemnation of the individual.
Now this is complete and utter bullshit.
Show me where Jesus (not some other old testament person) said that people who live and love in accordance with how god made them are ungodly.
There are certain churches that teach this kind of ignorant hatred, but it certainly has nothing to do with Christianity as taught by Jesus.
Saying that "true" Christian principles hold that to be true merely shows your prejudices. If your church teaches that, then how you could have the audacity to call some other Christian church non Christian is totally beyond me, but again that is the problem with fundamentalism. It discourages rational thought in favor of absolutism (We're right and everyone else is an evil sinner and not a Christian if they differ from our dogma on even a trivial issue).
In closing, I would just like to invite you and those of similar beliefs to have a more open mind on the subject, and to realise that your arguments are no less based on your beliefs and biases than anyone else's.
I have a very open mind about the subject. I do not appreciate it when people try to shove their beliefs down my throat. There is a huge difference between that and having a closed mind. Please note, that I am not saying that you tried to shove anything anywhere.
I think Pat Buchanan, a conservative,
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative. He is a fundamentalist hate-mongering religious zealot intent on destroying the constitution and replacing it with a theocracy.
If you identify yourself with that kind of slime, then you are far worse than a neocon. You must despise everything this country stands for.
The religious and other freedoms were put into the bill of rights specifically to prevent people like Buchanan from having their way with this country.
If you really want to live under religious law, please move to Saudi Arabia or some other place that practices it and then let's see what you think about it. Oh, you don't want to? Well think about why that is, and realize that that is what *always* happens with religious rule. It doesn't matter in the least which religion is ruling.
Being a good American doesn't mean living your life how you want, it means having the courage to allow others to do so. If you honestly believe that you have the right to tell people they can't live their lives their way because you don't like it then you are a very sick individual.
If you don't believe that, then why the hell would you identify yourself with a piece of garbage like Buchanan?
...(both were aproached by beings of light that only they met, both claimed knowledge from a hidden source [Joseph Smith had tablets only he could read, Mohammed took dictation when he supposedly couldn't write],...
Basically the same thing applies to every other religion ever invented, including yours, if you have one.
Of course, the fundamentalist wack jobs of whatever particular religion see that in all other religions, but ignore it regarding their own.
This is one of the major problems with fundamentalism. The people who buy into it are incapable of dealing with reality. They can see the problems with everybody else's beliefs, but even though the problems with their own are essentially identical to those they see in others, they freak out and lose all rational capability when you point this out to them.
So Mormons are at least as good of Christians as any fundamentalist wacko branch. The Mormons I know are better people (and better Christians) than any fundamentalist I've ever met. All these gay hating, forcing prayer in the schools, institute religious law in America, psychopaths have no freaking clue what the hell the person they claim to follow even said, or they would realise when he said not to do all that crazy hatred bullshit that he was talking specifically to them and the rest of their ilk.
I wish I possessed your uncanny ability to flawlessly evaluate the character of anybody, anywhere, without ever having met them.
Perhaps you could propose some hypothetical mechanism by which it would be possible for anybody with access to the technology required to become a spammer to not know that it is one of the most hated "professions" around?
Unless you can, I don't think it is the least bit unreasonable to assume that anybody involved in the spam business has made a conscious decision to make their money by harassing people, selling fraudulent products, and actively interfering with people's ability to use ther own property for their own purposes.
Given these facts, I fail to see how the ability to evaluate the character of somebody who wears it on their sleeve like that is the least bit uncanny.
You see, it's not a question of assessing the character of "anyone anywhere", but that of a certain person who has proven himself to be lacking in basic decency.
Sounds like they have John Kerry working for them.
"I supported opening the source to Java, before I voted to keep it closed."
That example doesn't work.
It would have to be more like, "I supported opening the source to Java because I was provided with falsified information. When the truth came out, the facts no longer supported that course of action, so I no longer supported it."
It's a little thing called integrity.
Too bad our current president doesn't have any.
So you leave gnu tar out of this list then? (default output of gnu tar does not interoperate with other versions of tar).
I'm not sure about other versions, but the Solaris version of tar has been broken for years.
Have an archive with nested directories? Too bad, if the path is too long (I forget how long, but not that long) it fails. This includes files I've downloaded from Sun. They recommend using GNU tar.
Since it's the version that works, I'd call that the standard.
This whole argument over whether Linus could possibly have written Linux reminds me of a quote from Bill Joy
If I had to rewrite Unix from scratch, I could do it in a summer, easily," says Joy. "And it would be much better. A much, much better job. The ideas are old."
No doubt, I wrote a complete *NIX kernel in 3 lines of perl. Granted, it isn't easy to read and I have to use a pentagram shaped xterm to view the code to keep demons from appearing but it works.
It is censorship if government pressure causes the private company to change its mind and not distribute it for no other reason than backlash from said government.
But what do you call it when said corporation chooses not to distribute it to curry favor with the government in the interest of (and/or thanks for) getting legislation passed which is more favorable to it than to the citizens?
Yea i've been going on a religious rant the past 2 days but like everyone else, when there beliefs/ideas get criticize to a great degree they feel the need to defend......
;-)
Too bad you only pay lip service to your beliefs, otherwisee you would have turned the other cheek.
1. We don't support fascists, we kill them
Burying your ignorant head in the sand isn't helping anything.
Our Energy policy was written by the energy industry with no ability for the American public to even know who was there to set our policy.
That *is* fascism. The merger of state and corporate power.
I happen to support my government.
Good for you. I sincerely hope that you realise that that has nothing to do with Patriotism. In some cases it is, in fact, the opposite.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard, 'As an MCSE I know', I'd be living next to Bill Gates.
At least he was correct in what he said.
Go through all of the times you heard that and filter it with this and you'd be lucky to paint Bill's gate for a nickle.
I draw the line at persian cats.
Do you recommend any particular merchant for your monocle needs?
Right after you claim to be unbiased? Wow. I am not a patriot, I am a human.
Disliking a person because of specific statements they have made and actions they have taken has nothing at all to do with partizanship. There isn't a political bias to it at all.
I have never heard anyone in the administration claim that being against the war is treason, can you give me an example/quote?
"You're either with us or against us" -GWB
"To say that there should be no dissent is morally treasonous to the American people" -Teddy Roosevelt
So, anyone who is guilty should refuse a lawyer and condemn themselves to the worst possible punishment immediately, or they have no integrity. Or is that just when you don't like them?
Not at all. I have no idea how you got to that from what I said.
Rush has repeatedly spoken out against "druggies" as worthless scum who should be put away. He is a druggie, hence integrity would demand him to apply his sickeningly flawed opinion to his situation. Either that, or admit he's full of shit.
If you take it for a fact that the war in Iraq is "evil," to convince anyone of anything, they have to already believe that.
I never said that it was "evil". The stated reason has been shown to be a lie. The new lie is that we're there to give them freedom and democracy. Well, the recent photos sure don't look like that.
Given that between 50% and 90% (depending on which source you look at) of the people we put in prison in Iraq are not guilty of anything, our moral standing in the world is shit.
You're morally ambiguous............
I never claimed that I wasn't. Just making a point that, granted, was irrelevant.
I didn't realize we were kicking people out of their homes in Iraq.
If they had homes, they wouldn't be homeless. I thought that would be enough of a sign that I was making an anology based on your statement.
> Globalism and the mass priviatization of utilities is kicking the homeless out of their boxes.
Again, evidence?
Take a look at South America for a clear example.
The IMF/World Bank have a 4 step policy when providing aid to poor countries.
This involves selling off their utilities generally to foreign companies which takes control of the basic necessities of life from the people of that country. Water prices typically go up by 400% or more. Electricity as well. How could these policies have any affect besides keeping the people in poor countries poor?
Now, look at Venezuala. Chavez saw through that, refused the aid, nationalized the utilities and now compare them to Chile or Argentina.
They are an example of how by going against the policies of the IMF is actually much better for a developing nation. Of course that isn't good for the IMF/World Bank, so what happened? Bush sent in soldiers to aid in overthrowing a democratically elected leader.Luckilly, Chavez was tipped off and managed to videotape American soldiers aiding in a coup. His massive support among his people put him back in power within days.
> Bush only won the election because Jeb's Sec State illegally
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The election was won, get the fuck over it, the Democrats in Washington have, for the most part.
> You don't see that in the mainstream media though, do you?
Yes, actually I did. Until they pointed out that it was a blatant falsehood. JEB BUSH HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE *DEMOCRAT* THAT RAN THE ELECTIONS AND MADE THAT REQUEST.
Dude.
Not true.
Kathleen Harris was Sec State. She ran the purge. Choicepoint was the company who provided the list and they have freaking admitted that it was totally inaccurate and they told Kathleen that it needed to be cleaned up.
She refused.
Those are the facts.
There are still cases in court to try and get the voting rights back for these people.
Give an example of when this was
Why should I ask someone without a business perspective what's good for business? Wouldn't this be like asking someone without a technical perspective what's good for technology?
Because the basis of patents is in The Constitution of The United States of America.
The sole reason patents are even allowed to exist at all, let alone for a limited time, is to promote the useful arts and sciences.
What's "good for business" is only relevant so far as it promotes the general welfare of We The People.