Of course, there are also controversial topics such as Mao, representative government, and democracy. I tend to think that wikipedia (WP) is at its best at those issue precisely because of ability for each sides to edit the article because at the end of the day, it demands compromise from all side in order for a particular edit to stay.
When one of those parties is the government, it isn't compromise anymore, it's a veto. It isn't about interpretation of facts, the issue is the facts themselves. The censors deny that events have happened, when they obviously have.
I think the Chinese version ought to simply delete the articles that are subject to censorship so that it's obvious there was disagreeable information in them.
At a more basic level the software I'm using on this machine costs thousands of dollars. At home I have very useful and functional machines where the software cost is $0.
This is your boss. You are fired for reading the internet at work.
I guess making a bit-for-bit duplicate of a DVD for personal use is okay, but if you decrypt the video stream, you've violated the DMCA, a criminal statute. If someone else did it and you get it, then it's a civil issue. (IANAL either)
Really though, he's trying to be precise, and get the distributors to be precise. "Linux" is a kernel; a GNU/Linux distribution is a combination of a Linux kernel and GNU tools. But you can call it what you like. (I don't say gah-nu-slash-linux either.)
You pay the mechanic to run diagnostics and find the source of problems in addition to fixing them; you're not paying for anything on a FOSS message board. Next analogy?
"There's a very significant trend towards the use of open systems that can be freely modified and redistributed."
Only if all your buddies run Linux. Other than myself, I don't personally know a single person with any interest in modification or redistribution of computer systems. And I'm in grad school, home to some of the geekiest people in the world.
How about the facts that the 50 Democratic senators need him to pass any legislation, and the Republicans would love to have him block Democratic proposals?
Lieberman is already as old as Yoda, I'm not sure he cares what's going to happen six years in the future.
Even if the Democrats win Montana and Virginia, they have 50 without Lieberman. The Republicans would love to get Joe on their side so they can get Cheney to break every tie. They do so need Lieberman. If the Republicans offer him committee chairmanship or something, and maybe a blowjob, he might be persuaded to switch sides.
It doesn't, but it puts no restrictions on China because they are classed as a developing nation, even though they are the second largest producer of carbon emissions. Their emission levels are also increasing about three times as fast as in the US.
But GP's point was that if there was a bill that would preserve net neutrality forever and also kill a puppy, from a technology-centric viewpoint, someone should vote for it to be considered tech-friendly.
Well, by definition, conservatives were trying to preserve the status quo. In the last 150 years, liberal and conservative have developed different meanings.
Slashdot Mirror
Shut the fuck up. Insightful? Who the fuck got mod points this week? -1, Troll. At best.
Of course, there are also controversial topics such as Mao, representative government, and democracy. I tend to think that wikipedia (WP) is at its best at those issue precisely because of ability for each sides to edit the article because at the end of the day, it demands compromise from all side in order for a particular edit to stay.
When one of those parties is the government, it isn't compromise anymore, it's a veto. It isn't about interpretation of facts, the issue is the facts themselves. The censors deny that events have happened, when they obviously have.
I think the Chinese version ought to simply delete the articles that are subject to censorship so that it's obvious there was disagreeable information in them.
What the fuck is a "kernal?"
Yeah, Slashdot is for dicks, give me dysentery any day of the week.
At a more basic level the software I'm using on this machine costs thousands of dollars. At home I have very useful and functional machines where the software cost is $0.
This is your boss. You are fired for reading the internet at work.
I am the boss though, so I can do it all I want.
Debian testing is pretty much the same, except I don't have to keep a bunch of source libraries on my box.
It'll cost you an extra $200.
I guess making a bit-for-bit duplicate of a DVD for personal use is okay, but if you decrypt the video stream, you've violated the DMCA, a criminal statute. If someone else did it and you get it, then it's a civil issue. (IANAL either)
Freedom is often inconvenient.
Really though, he's trying to be precise, and get the distributors to be precise. "Linux" is a kernel; a GNU/Linux distribution is a combination of a Linux kernel and GNU tools. But you can call it what you like. (I don't say gah-nu-slash-linux either.)
You pay the mechanic to run diagnostics and find the source of problems in addition to fixing them; you're not paying for anything on a FOSS message board. Next analogy?
I think he was talking about GNU userland programs, not the GNU/Hurd operating system. Emacs, gcc, et cetera.
Cache link appears to be /.'ed.
Way to give a reply totally unrelated to the first post in order to boost your visibility, whore.
"There's a very significant trend towards the use of open systems that can be freely modified and redistributed."
Only if all your buddies run Linux. Other than myself, I don't personally know a single person with any interest in modification or redistribution of computer systems. And I'm in grad school, home to some of the geekiest people in the world.
Ask the Jews.
How about the facts that the 50 Democratic senators need him to pass any legislation, and the Republicans would love to have him block Democratic proposals?
"Ehh, I dont think so. If they had won something like 2/3'rds control, you could say mandate." -1, Short memory
Lieberman is already as old as Yoda, I'm not sure he cares what's going to happen six years in the future. Even if the Democrats win Montana and Virginia, they have 50 without Lieberman. The Republicans would love to get Joe on their side so they can get Cheney to break every tie. They do so need Lieberman. If the Republicans offer him committee chairmanship or something, and maybe a blowjob, he might be persuaded to switch sides.
The President can write a law and have a member of Congress introduce it on his behalf.
Give me one goddamn fucking good reason why Nacy Pelosi would make a frightful president. I'm so goddamn sick of hearing this bullshit.
It doesn't, but it puts no restrictions on China because they are classed as a developing nation, even though they are the second largest producer of carbon emissions. Their emission levels are also increasing about three times as fast as in the US.
Kazakhstan is not a middle eastern country.
It's "Hear, hear!"
But GP's point was that if there was a bill that would preserve net neutrality forever and also kill a puppy, from a technology-centric viewpoint, someone should vote for it to be considered tech-friendly.
Well, by definition, conservatives were trying to preserve the status quo. In the last 150 years, liberal and conservative have developed different meanings.