Suppression of the "free media" is alive and well in the ol' US of A. Luckily, the internet is changing that in ways that piss off the old guys. In any event, please don't become exaggerating and cynical like many people are, both here in Brasil and in the USA (mind you, I know about USA people only from movies, TV, and Slashdot:)). I see far to many people saying stuff like "Look, I read in the newspaper that a person was convicted without real evidence! And our government claims we are better than the soviets. Hypocrites."
The point is, you should certainly fight for your rights and stop your government from violating them, but you only *make things worse* by making wildly exaggerated claims that you are as bad as the Soviets*. This way, when two politicians differ in human rights, this issue won't be valued, as people will say "nah, both are the same shit, we're all fucked up anyway", and either abstain from voting, or decide the vote based in another issue.
Here in Brasil, when I try to claim that a certain wants to move us towards a Hugo Chavez - style dictatorship, I am met with disdain, like "Meh, its all the same, voting doesn't matter,...".
Anyway, I may watch your film. Thank you for your suggestion. I just hope it is not some exaggerating, cynical, stupid Michal Moore-like film...
* Have some perspective, people. When dozens of millions of people die from starvation, outright execution, or a slow gradual death in forced labor camps, we can talk about being as bad as the Soviets.
I believe Free Software is indeed about freedom. And I believe that Open Source does tend to produce the best technical results, but of course there are exceptions. Specially in areas where Open Source is not (at least yet) mature enough, possibly due to presently having too little momentum. Perhaps one example would be 3D FPS gaming, but I cannot comment because I currently rarely play games. I do believe that by stimulating free software I am stimulating both superior technology, economic efficiency and issues like 1) The freedom of access to information 2) The independence of people, including in foreign countries, from a particular corporation * 3) Power to the people, including from repressive governments 4) The framework (free, good quality compilers and libraries for software makers; free and good image editing tools for image makers; etc) for people to learn something, or, after learning, to express their potential
And there is no doubt that by merely using Firefox, I help them. It is called network-effect. The network effect in software is so strong that a scientific study has found that, if not for piracy (which allows people who otherwise would use Linux to use Windows), Microsoft would undoubtedly lose to Linux. With piracy, the study found that the future is uncertain, and no winner can be predicted (and maybe there won't even be a clear winner). The reason is that each person that uses Windows (even if without paying) is one less Linux user. One more person in the market for Windows software. One more person for a windows user to turn for help. One more reason for hardware companies to develop Windows drivers. So yes, network effect is so strong that Windows has a *net benefit* from piracy.
So I do help Free Software by merely using it, and even more when I advocate my friends to use it too, and when I help people in the forums, report bugs, etc. And I am always honest: I only advocate Firefox because I know that, while being (possibly) worse than Opera, it is good enough, and I don't claim it to be the best. I just claim it is very good, and much better than IE.
* Really. I'm not the usual moon-landing 9/11 JFK conspiracy retard, but it is scary that our whole country, including the armed forces, depend on Microsoft. It is not like the USA has not deliberately leaked booby-trapped technology to the Soviets before**... There is a real-world possibility that the US government has made Microsoft put traps on Windows ** And, by the way, it was good. I am not your usual Soviet Union panderer either. I thank God that the Soviets are gone, and I hope the Chinese dictatorship goes away as well. Unfortunately, the reality is currently different from that, and the future seems worrisome, specially for us in Latin America...
I'm a Firefox user myself. I haven't used Opera since many years ago, but only because it is proprietary software. I don't know how things are now, but last time I used Opera it was *fast*, making internet browsing far more pleasant. I would really like for Firefox to be half as performance conscious as Opera. And, by the way, a 600 MHz / 256 MB should absolutely be able to run a web browser. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, an example of "let Moore's law take care of it" attitude. Though still not as exaggerated as the attitude of some people who claim with a straight face that "Vista should not be bashed, it simply is an OS for contemporary computers with 4 GB of RAM"
And I loved Opera's UI when I tried it. Specifically, that it had tabs, and that I could save sessions. Only later did Firefox gain tabs, and only much later it gained anything resembling session saving (the "save tabs as a bookmark folder" feature, which is still not ideal, but mostly good enough).
I never had an issue with Opera's UI being "different than normal". In fact, I see that, for example, some Windows software have a crazy UI but are popular. It seems to me that a native software can be as crazy as it wants (and by the way, I find it ridiculous that programmers go out of their way to make crazy UIs instead of sticking with the default), but we hold a different standard for cross-platform software: we demand that it behaves exactly like a native application. When a reviewer examines a cross-platform software, one of the most important things in his mind is "is there any difference between the way this behaves or even *looks*, and a native application?". I, personally, find this attitude ridiculous.
In fact, it seems that one of reasons for the huge disaster that is Java UI is that Sun first had an obsession of the UI looking exactly the same on any platform, then it changed for an obsession for the UI being exactly the same as a native software. Although I concede there are far more important reasons for the train wreck that is Java UI.
All right, I must say I just jumped into this discussion because the idea of overtaxing petroleum companies was so outrageous that I had to comment. And then I commented on your conspiracy theories because I see many people making their minds based on chain-mail. But I will not even bother to thoroughly investigate this, because, in fact, I'm not even American. Since I'll not vote for either Obama or Mccain, it makes not sense to spend the time on it. On this sort of complex issue, I would take days of reading to make a really informed decision.
Heh, speaking of mass mailings, my girlfriend just yesterday forwarded to me a chain-mail about how "British schools are omitting the Holocaust from their curriculum". I didn't even bother to read it:)
Interesting how left off the first part of what you quoted me on I misread your claim. I thought you were actually supporting that idea, instead of just explaining the DEM point of view. That does not change the fact that the idea is absurd, and someone that votes for it is clearly doing political pandering. You want to reduce the price of a product, so you tax its makers? Wow. Just... wow.
About your conspiracy theories, I would like to see sources for it, and see it in context. Otherwise I will put it in the same class as those internet mass-mailings about Bush. Like those phrases allegedly said by Bush... Some of them are simply lies. Others were taken out of context. Like, once he was speaking about the USA/Mexico border and the USA/Canada border, and, when the phrase was taken out of context and mass-mailed, it looked like Bush thought that the Mexico borders Canada, because he said something like "the border with Mexico, and Canada (...)" I just find it ridiculous that people base their opinion on internet mass-mailings, of *extremely dubious* reliability, and often taken out of context...
Or they realise that aslong as it works, nobody outside of slashdot cares if it renders pages in 100ms or 200. Years ago I saw an Opera ad and thought "Ridiculous. Internet browsing is obviously IO-bound. Having a faster browser obviously cannot improve it". When I actually tried Opera though, I was proven wrong. I then realized that other browsers were so frickin slow that yes, Opera could make internet browsing far more pleasant. I later realized that the whole "IO-bound" meme is often just an excuse for slow software... If you actually optimize the software, you find that yes, it can be made much faster.
Mind you, I nowadays don't use Opera because it is not Free Software. I use Firefox.
Remind me again when Bush issued his first Veto? You are aware a veto can be overturned, aren't you?
if they increase taxes on oil companies PROFITS, my guess is they were hoping that would encourage the oil companies to reduce the amount of profit they make because it would increase the amount of taxes they paid. What did you smoke?
Explain to me how a (say) 10% tax on profits would change the fact that the oil companies will charge the price that maximizes their revenue.
It looks like you wanted an excuse for blaming the oil price on Bush, and now you can't explain yourself
I am amazed how a closed-source app like Opera can outperform open source browsers that can supposedly integrate into the enviroment much better by such a high margin. I am not sure Firefox developers even *care* enough about speed. Unfortunately, most developers have this attitude that "I can make code as slow as I want, and Moore's law will take care of it". Optimization is seen as a waste of time.
f found guilty there's also the appeals process, given sufficient new evidence. The point is that, after a woman accuses a man of rape, and cries in court (convincing the jury), and he is convicted, he now has to find proof that he is innocent to make an appeal. Instead of the accusation having to prove him guilty, he has the burden of proving himself innocent. Needless to say, it can be very difficult to prove that one has *not* committed a crime.
The point is, that if the trial is carried according to the book, but even then the jury convicts the man without evidence, he is indeed convicted and jailed. He cannot appeal based on "there was no evidence". It is "You had a fair trial, the jury found you guilty".
In Brasil, a jury decision can (AFAIK) be overturned due to "lack of evidence".
Isn't this the case in the UK and the US (from where I've also heard of people being convicted due to hearsay)? It shocks me that a man under trial is completely at the mercy of those 12 people.
So now there's no electable left-wing party. It's a tragedy. More like a daydream to me... Spoken by a guy in Latin America seeing Hugo Chavez sponsoring the FARC and trying to make Cuba the rule instead of the exception.
Are you joking? I'm 1.98m and I ride in cars like Fiat Palio, VW Gol and Ford Fiesta. It is OK in the front seat, a little bad in the back seat (specially outside of the middle).
In a typical sedan, you can fit 5 people, though it might get a little uncomfortable putting 3 in the back seat if they aren't children What?! 3 people get uncomfortable in the back seat of a sedan? Wow, Americans *are* fat...
1) You still block everyone else line of sight 2) You thing it is *good* that you take longer to stop? If you had a light vehicles, you could simply not push the brakes to much when you don't need, but still push it hard when you need... 3) And even if you are indeed a good driver (remember that nearly everyone consider themselves good drivers), you could be still a good driver *and* a good citizen by driving a car that 1) does not block other people's line of sight 2) does not crush people into a pulp in the case of a crash 3) does not roll over that easily 4) has better breaking and handling 5) does not guzzle gas and produce a ton of smoke
But as long as YOU DON'T PAY MY GAS BILLS, I drive any fuckin' truck I choose without to much care as to what you think. Even knowing that your penis size compensator is a smoke-producing gas-guzzler body-crunching multi-ton tank? You should care more about the damage you cause to other people.
I'm so tired of people who happen to not need a motor vehicle making fun of those of us who NEED a vehicle larger than a subcompact. Because we see so many people that "need" an SUV because they might, perhaps, one day, go camping. Or because it snows in their area. Or because they have 3 kids. 1) It makes no sense to specialize your car for a situation you might encounter 0.1% of the time. If you think you might one day move stuff, than find the telephone number of a truck rental service, instead of using this to justify buying a large monster and then using it to commute. 2) As for off-road: 99.99% of the time, a reasonable RWD with proper tires does just fine, as long as the driver has common sense. Not to mention that SUVs are more designed to *look* offroad than to actually be it, and, since the drivers think they are driving war tanks, they are often more likely to get stuck then a reasonable RWD driver. 3) For space, there are better alternatives than an SUV.
My father has a medium truck which he uses for farm work (like carrying a metric ton of fertilizer, salt, etc.). On the city, however, he much prefers the old VW Gol. Faster, cheaper to run, handles better, far less noisy...
the BSA's stance is that merely being gay or non-Christian means you are not fit to lead children. Which is very reasonable, given that their value system values God and family values.
What's next, the Catholic church will be taken to court for not accepting an atheist as a priest?
I believe the GP point was clear. And most importantly, I believe the BSA has a clear right of upholding their values. What's next, the Catholic church will be taken to court for not accepting atheists for priests?
People get really stupid. Several times there were obnoxious assholes who suddenly hollered at me as they flew 6in by me. If I was startled in the wrong way that could've led to an accident. That would be no accident. It would be a crash, and it would be murder. I speak as someone who has been in your situation.
It's technically illegal in Omaha, but no sane person rides in the street, as people will aim for you. What these people do is immoral and illegal (at least where I live).
Any spot where I can travel at a dangerous enough speed (20mph) also has low pedestrian traffic. Any any smart bike rider will maintain lower speed around pedestrians. I've actually never seen nor heard of a bicycle/ped crash. Bicycle in the sidewalk are a danger to pedestrians when they get distracted. Bicycle on the road, however, can go along pretty happily with cars, as long as they respect each other. Bicycles in the sidewalk are illegal all over the world for a reason.
1) The drivers are not a team, and the bicycles are not a team. It is not "they behave like this, and now they are complaining about us". They are different people. 2) The way some car drivers treat bicycle drivers (like what happened to the grand parent, and what also happened to me) is very dangerous to their life. Someone being allegedly wrong in traffic does not even begin to justify murder. 3) Often the bicycle driver is mistreated for simply being on the road. Many car drivers have the assumption that roads were meant for cars and bicycles do not belong in them. If they ever have to change their trajectory because of a biker, the biker is obviously wrong - he doesn't belong there.
But in that case do we tax older cars too? Older cars spit out a hellova lot more crap than newer ones. A 1980s 2.0L engine probably uses more fuel than modern 3.5L engines. Do we tax them too? Would be fair
We (or at least I) are not saying SUVs should be banned; we are just saying that they should be more intensely taxed so their owners pay for the damage they cause. If you want to buy a smoke-producing body-crushing multi-ton tank and compensate for you small penis (or you are among the 3% of SUV owners that bought it for another reason) fine, but pay for the damage you cause.
I am against big government and also against Greenpeace and other enviro-hippies, but I still believe that SUVS should be somewhat higher taxed. Externalities should be accounted for in the price of a car. Or, to put it simply, your freedom to buy whatever car you want is limited by my freedom of driving in a road without smoke-producing body-crushing multi-ton tanks. Unless you stay out of public roads and clean the smoke produced by your car, you get to pay for the damage you cause.
Slashdot Mirror
I see far to many people saying stuff like "Look, I read in the newspaper that a person was convicted without real evidence! And our government claims we are better than the soviets. Hypocrites."
The point is, you should certainly fight for your rights and stop your government from violating them, but you only *make things worse* by making wildly exaggerated claims that you are as bad as the Soviets*. This way, when two politicians differ in human rights, this issue won't be valued, as people will say "nah, both are the same shit, we're all fucked up anyway", and either abstain from voting, or decide the vote based in another issue.
Here in Brasil, when I try to claim that a certain wants to move us towards a Hugo Chavez - style dictatorship, I am met with disdain, like "Meh, its all the same, voting doesn't matter,
Anyway, I may watch your film. Thank you for your suggestion. I just hope it is not some exaggerating, cynical, stupid Michal Moore-like film...
* Have some perspective, people. When dozens of millions of people die from starvation, outright execution, or a slow gradual death in forced labor camps, we can talk about being as bad as the Soviets.
I believe Free Software is indeed about freedom. And I believe that Open Source does tend to produce the best technical results, but of course there are exceptions. Specially in areas where Open Source is not (at least yet) mature enough, possibly due to presently having too little momentum. Perhaps one example would be 3D FPS gaming, but I cannot comment because I currently rarely play games.
I do believe that by stimulating free software I am stimulating both superior technology, economic efficiency and issues like
1) The freedom of access to information
2) The independence of people, including in foreign countries, from a particular corporation *
3) Power to the people, including from repressive governments
4) The framework (free, good quality compilers and libraries for software makers; free and good image editing tools for image makers; etc) for people to learn something, or, after learning, to express their potential
And there is no doubt that by merely using Firefox, I help them. It is called network-effect. The network effect in software is so strong that a scientific study has found that, if not for piracy (which allows people who otherwise would use Linux to use Windows), Microsoft would undoubtedly lose to Linux. With piracy, the study found that the future is uncertain, and no winner can be predicted (and maybe there won't even be a clear winner). The reason is that each person that uses Windows (even if without paying) is one less Linux user. One more person in the market for Windows software. One more person for a windows user to turn for help. One more reason for hardware companies to develop Windows drivers. So yes, network effect is so strong that Windows has a *net benefit* from piracy.
So I do help Free Software by merely using it, and even more when I advocate my friends to use it too, and when I help people in the forums, report bugs, etc.
And I am always honest: I only advocate Firefox because I know that, while being (possibly) worse than Opera, it is good enough, and I don't claim it to be the best. I just claim it is very good, and much better than IE.
* Really. I'm not the usual moon-landing 9/11 JFK conspiracy retard, but it is scary that our whole country, including the armed forces, depend on Microsoft. It is not like the USA has not deliberately leaked booby-trapped technology to the Soviets before**... There is a real-world possibility that the US government has made Microsoft put traps on Windows
** And, by the way, it was good. I am not your usual Soviet Union panderer either. I thank God that the Soviets are gone, and I hope the Chinese dictatorship goes away as well. Unfortunately, the reality is currently different from that, and the future seems worrisome, specially for us in Latin America...
I'm a Firefox user myself. I haven't used Opera since many years ago, but only because it is proprietary software. I don't know how things are now, but last time I used Opera it was *fast*, making internet browsing far more pleasant. I would really like for Firefox to be half as performance conscious as Opera. And, by the way, a 600 MHz / 256 MB should absolutely be able to run a web browser. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, an example of "let Moore's law take care of it" attitude. Though still not as exaggerated as the attitude of some people who claim with a straight face that "Vista should not be bashed, it simply is an OS for contemporary computers with 4 GB of RAM"
And I loved Opera's UI when I tried it. Specifically, that it had tabs, and that I could save sessions. Only later did Firefox gain tabs, and only much later it gained anything resembling session saving (the "save tabs as a bookmark folder" feature, which is still not ideal, but mostly good enough).
I never had an issue with Opera's UI being "different than normal". In fact, I see that, for example, some Windows software have a crazy UI but are popular. It seems to me that a native software can be as crazy as it wants (and by the way, I find it ridiculous that programmers go out of their way to make crazy UIs instead of sticking with the default), but we hold a different standard for cross-platform software: we demand that it behaves exactly like a native application. When a reviewer examines a cross-platform software, one of the most important things in his mind is "is there any difference between the way this behaves or even *looks*, and a native application?". I, personally, find this attitude ridiculous.
In fact, it seems that one of reasons for the huge disaster that is Java UI is that Sun first had an obsession of the UI looking exactly the same on any platform, then it changed for an obsession for the UI being exactly the same as a native software. Although I concede there are far more important reasons for the train wreck that is Java UI.
All right, I must say I just jumped into this discussion because the idea of overtaxing petroleum companies was so outrageous that I had to comment.
And then I commented on your conspiracy theories because I see many people making their minds based on chain-mail.
But I will not even bother to thoroughly investigate this, because, in fact, I'm not even American. Since I'll not vote for either Obama or Mccain, it makes not sense to spend the time on it. On this sort of complex issue, I would take days of reading to make a really informed decision.
Heh, speaking of mass mailings, my girlfriend just yesterday forwarded to me a chain-mail about how "British schools are omitting the Holocaust from their curriculum". I didn't even bother to read it :)
About your conspiracy theories, I would like to see sources for it, and see it in context.
Otherwise I will put it in the same class as those internet mass-mailings about Bush. Like those phrases allegedly said by Bush... Some of them are simply lies. Others were taken out of context. Like, once he was speaking about the USA/Mexico border and the USA/Canada border, and, when the phrase was taken out of context and mass-mailed, it looked like Bush thought that the Mexico borders Canada, because he said something like "the border with Mexico, and Canada (...)"
I just find it ridiculous that people base their opinion on internet mass-mailings, of *extremely dubious* reliability, and often taken out of context...
Mind you, I nowadays don't use Opera because it is not Free Software. I use Firefox.
Explain to me how a (say) 10% tax on profits would change the fact that the oil companies will charge the price that maximizes their revenue.
It looks like you wanted an excuse for blaming the oil price on Bush, and now you can't explain yourself
The point is, that if the trial is carried according to the book, but even then the jury convicts the man without evidence, he is indeed convicted and jailed. He cannot appeal based on "there was no evidence". It is "You had a fair trial, the jury found you guilty".
How can a man be convicted based on hearsay?
In Brasil, a jury decision can (AFAIK) be overturned due to "lack of evidence".
Isn't this the case in the UK and the US (from where I've also heard of people being convicted due to hearsay)?
It shocks me that a man under trial is completely at the mercy of those 12 people.
Spoken by a guy in Latin America seeing Hugo Chavez sponsoring the FARC and trying to make Cuba the rule instead of the exception.
Are you joking? I'm 1.98m and I ride in cars like Fiat Palio, VW Gol and Ford Fiesta. It is OK in the front seat, a little bad in the back seat (specially outside of the middle).
1) You still block everyone else line of sight
2) You thing it is *good* that you take longer to stop? If you had a light vehicles, you could simply not push the brakes to much when you don't need, but still push it hard when you need...
3) And even if you are indeed a good driver (remember that nearly everyone consider themselves good drivers), you could be still a good driver *and* a good citizen by driving a car that
1) does not block other people's line of sight
2) does not crush people into a pulp in the case of a crash
3) does not roll over that easily
4) has better breaking and handling
5) does not guzzle gas and produce a ton of smoke
You should care more about the damage you cause to other people. I'm so tired of people who happen to not need a motor vehicle making fun of those of us who NEED a vehicle larger than a subcompact. Because we see so many people that "need" an SUV because they might, perhaps, one day, go camping. Or because it snows in their area. Or because they have 3 kids.
1) It makes no sense to specialize your car for a situation you might encounter 0.1% of the time. If you think you might one day move stuff, than find the telephone number of a truck rental service, instead of using this to justify buying a large monster and then using it to commute.
2) As for off-road: 99.99% of the time, a reasonable RWD with proper tires does just fine, as long as the driver has common sense. Not to mention that SUVs are more designed to *look* offroad than to actually be it, and, since the drivers think they are driving war tanks, they are often more likely to get stuck then a reasonable RWD driver.
3) For space, there are better alternatives than an SUV.
My father has a medium truck which he uses for farm work (like carrying a metric ton of fertilizer, salt, etc.). On the city, however, he much prefers the old VW Gol. Faster, cheaper to run, handles better, far less noisy...
What's next, the Catholic church will be taken to court for not accepting an atheist as a priest?
I believe the GP point was clear. And most importantly, I believe the BSA has a clear right of upholding their values.
What's next, the Catholic church will be taken to court for not accepting atheists for priests?
And why do you think he is defending such geeks?
I speak as someone who has been in your situation.
Bicycles in the sidewalk are illegal all over the world for a reason.
1) The drivers are not a team, and the bicycles are not a team. It is not "they behave like this, and now they are complaining about us". They are different people.
2) The way some car drivers treat bicycle drivers (like what happened to the grand parent, and what also happened to me) is very dangerous to their life. Someone being allegedly wrong in traffic does not even begin to justify murder.
3) Often the bicycle driver is mistreated for simply being on the road. Many car drivers have the assumption that roads were meant for cars and bicycles do not belong in them. If they ever have to change their trajectory because of a biker, the biker is obviously wrong - he doesn't belong there.
We (or at least I) are not saying SUVs should be banned; we are just saying that they should be more intensely taxed so their owners pay for the damage they cause. If you want to buy a smoke-producing body-crushing multi-ton tank and compensate for you small penis (or you are among the 3% of SUV owners that bought it for another reason) fine, but pay for the damage you cause.
I am against big government and also against Greenpeace and other enviro-hippies, but I still believe that SUVS should be somewhat higher taxed. Externalities should be accounted for in the price of a car.
Or, to put it simply, your freedom to buy whatever car you want is limited by my freedom of driving in a road without smoke-producing body-crushing multi-ton tanks.
Unless you stay out of public roads and clean the smoke produced by your car, you get to pay for the damage you cause.