Yes, but the question is why. Clearly it was to associate Google with OSS. But anybody who is informed knows that Google is not transparent when it comes to software.
"Conservatives" in the US have pushed hard for things like religion in the state, stripping of constitutional protections and freedoms in the name of fighting "terrorism", pushing to ban gay marriage, aggressive preemptive foreign policy, and an wild extension of the executive branch's power.
If you look at it from a Constitutional perspective, it's an extremely liberal agenda.
What? How is that a liberal agenda? The Constitution is a liberal document - stripping its protections would be anti-liberal. Human and civil rights are objects of liberal philosophy. Opposing them would be anti-liberal.
That's why I call myself a constitutional conservative: I believe everyone has equal rights, those rights cannot be waived for the convenience of protection, and that the three branches must retain equal power to balance and check each other.
And that's about as liberal as it gets!
I thought "constitutional conservatives" were more about being "strict constructionists" in their interpretation of the Constitution?
Socialism is about 'social', about rights for the masses (often blended with democracy, as in power to the people). Opposing hierarchy, monarchy, and all that is nonsense
No, it's not nonsense. That's exactly where the term "left-wing" came from - opposing the monarchy in favor of the people's rights. Anarchists also oppose monarchies, so they can both be considered left-wing. The problem you appear to be having is that liberalism, socialism and conservatism are orthogonal to left-wing and right- wing. Political philosophies don't tend to fit neatly into this one-dimensional scale.
Where do you get your political notions from, Animal Farm?
From history? From being educated, and not a stupid little troll?
Oh, I don't, eh? The left-wing opposes hierarchy, monarchy, and traditional social structures. Socialism favors replacing these structures with community, workers having a stake in the economy, welfare and rights for the disenfranchised. Anarchists favor replacing these traditional structures with nothing at all. So, socialism and anarchism are very different ideologies, but they both tend to be left-wing (not withstanding the very rare right-wing anarchist).
Nonsense. Liberalism was originally left-of-center during the French Revolutionary times - because liberals were opposed to monarchy and aristocracy.
Nowadays, only extreme rightists are really supportive of monarchy. America was founded on the principles of liberalism, so it's really the baseline for the country. In other words, in America, liberalism is the default, the most centrist, moderate thing there is. Its principles should be largely agreed to by both sides of politics except the extremes.
But there has been a lot of propaganda from the right lately, trying to paint liberalism as "left wing" and "socialist" - which is really messing with the mainstream's perceptions.
And you're wrong about the rest of the world, too. Most modern countries consider liberalism to be pretty much centrist.
There is a notable international publication devoted to the ideals of political/economics liberalism (The Economist) which is often criticized for being too far to the right everywhere except the US
Of course, it's highly debatable that The Economist is about the ideals of liberalism. I thought it was mostly about money and capitalism.
Which is very odd. Do you say that, just because of how you want to define right-wing, rather than what right-wing actually means?
So if the Australian Liberal Party were a right wing party it would make sense for them to use that name.
Again, very odd, because liberalism is not strictly a synonym of "liberty" - although liberalism includes the ideas of freedom and rights, it connotes more about progressivism and reform.
I don't understand why Liberal refers to left wing politics in the US. That makes little sense to me.
Of course it makes little sense, when you have so little understanding of the terms. Liberal does not refer to left-wing politics, either, and outside of a few random anarchists and socialists there isn't really a left-wing in US politics.
Consider a car travelling at 100km/h compared to a STOL personal air vehicle landing at 100km/h. Which one is closest to obstacles?
There's not nearly enough information in your question to answer it. Is the car driving in the middle of a desert? Is the air vehicle landing in a shopping mall?
They were all humans, whether atheists or Christian. I don't see any need to disavow myself or other people of the status "human" just because other humans have committed atrocities.
Your comment, eh? Then why are you posting anonymously, rather than under the username of the comment you are defending?
Anyway, I wasn't taking comments out of context, as the entirety of the context was claiming that because a word has been used for 50 years means there's nothing wrong with it. There was nothing else to "your" post.
Were you not suspicious of the "military grade" claims? Frankly, you're digging yourself further into a hole. It doesn't sound like you did any due diligence whatsoever - you just bought a product because it was cheaper without doing any research. To anybody with any experience, this scenario would have raised serious questions.
No, they buy tickets online or from a vending machine and get in much faster so there's no reason for the lines anymore.
Which is why I put "line up" in quotation marks, because I'm fully aware that the line to buy tickets is largely obsolete, and has been replaced with virtual versions. What I was getting at, was the amount of excitement for films. I don't think many people care much about films anymore, or at least not for seeing them at release.
A person who looked at their website, noticed that it is US based and has several high-end products.
Doesn't that make it worse? Asian companies are known for having terrible English-language brand names, but there must be some kind of super-incompetence for a US-based company to make the same mistake.
Back then it was the *ONLY* solid state drive in that capacity that did not cost more than $10K.
Didn't that raise any alarm bells for you? Did you not for one moment think that "lack of quality" might be the reason behind this massive price discrepancy? I mean, do you buy watches from street vendors claiming to have genuine Rolex watches, or what?
There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft. This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.
Two aircraft collided over Brazil because of a collision avoidance system? That must be one really shitty system, if it succeeds at doing the exact opposite of what it is designed to do.
That might be your problem right there. If these companies can't even think of a decent product name, what makes you think they'll be able to make a decent product?
So, I assume you haven't actually measured the light output, you know, scientifically? After all, looking directly at the bulbs with the human eye is not a very accurate measure.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the question is why. Clearly it was to associate Google with OSS. But anybody who is informed knows that Google is not transparent when it comes to software.
Ohh -- you mean they made a superior product,
We're talking about Microsoft Windows here. That never happened.
With the advancement of Google and open-source software,
Oh yes, Google and Open Source Software... the kind of Open Source Software that's so secret they won't release the source code to.
... marvellous Redmond product...
When has that ever happened?
"Conservatives" in the US have pushed hard for things like religion in the state, stripping of constitutional protections and freedoms in the name of fighting "terrorism", pushing to ban gay marriage, aggressive preemptive foreign policy, and an wild extension of the executive branch's power. If you look at it from a Constitutional perspective, it's an extremely liberal agenda.
What? How is that a liberal agenda? The Constitution is a liberal document - stripping its protections would be anti-liberal. Human and civil rights are objects of liberal philosophy. Opposing them would be anti-liberal.
That's why I call myself a constitutional conservative: I believe everyone has equal rights, those rights cannot be waived for the convenience of protection, and that the three branches must retain equal power to balance and check each other.
And that's about as liberal as it gets!
I thought "constitutional conservatives" were more about being "strict constructionists" in their interpretation of the Constitution?
Socialism is about 'social', about rights for the masses (often blended with democracy, as in power to the people). Opposing hierarchy, monarchy, and all that is nonsense
No, it's not nonsense. That's exactly where the term "left-wing" came from - opposing the monarchy in favor of the people's rights. Anarchists also oppose monarchies, so they can both be considered left-wing. The problem you appear to be having is that liberalism, socialism and conservatism are orthogonal to left-wing and right- wing. Political philosophies don't tend to fit neatly into this one-dimensional scale.
Where do you get your political notions from, Animal Farm?
From history? From being educated, and not a stupid little troll?
Oh, I don't, eh? The left-wing opposes hierarchy, monarchy, and traditional social structures. Socialism favors replacing these structures with community, workers having a stake in the economy, welfare and rights for the disenfranchised. Anarchists favor replacing these traditional structures with nothing at all. So, socialism and anarchism are very different ideologies, but they both tend to be left-wing (not withstanding the very rare right-wing anarchist).
Nonsense. Liberalism was originally left-of-center during the French Revolutionary times - because liberals were opposed to monarchy and aristocracy.
Nowadays, only extreme rightists are really supportive of monarchy. America was founded on the principles of liberalism, so it's really the baseline for the country. In other words, in America, liberalism is the default, the most centrist, moderate thing there is. Its principles should be largely agreed to by both sides of politics except the extremes.
But there has been a lot of propaganda from the right lately, trying to paint liberalism as "left wing" and "socialist" - which is really messing with the mainstream's perceptions.
And you're wrong about the rest of the world, too. Most modern countries consider liberalism to be pretty much centrist.
There is a notable international publication devoted to the ideals of political/economics liberalism (The Economist) which is often criticized for being too far to the right everywhere except the US
Of course, it's highly debatable that The Economist is about the ideals of liberalism. I thought it was mostly about money and capitalism.
So how is that equivalent to other churches, which don't ask for cash to achieve certain levels of enlightenment?
For me, Liberty is more of a right wing concept.
Which is very odd. Do you say that, just because of how you want to define right-wing, rather than what right-wing actually means?
So if the Australian Liberal Party were a right wing party it would make sense for them to use that name.
Again, very odd, because liberalism is not strictly a synonym of "liberty" - although liberalism includes the ideas of freedom and rights, it connotes more about progressivism and reform.
I don't understand why Liberal refers to left wing politics in the US. That makes little sense to me.
Of course it makes little sense, when you have so little understanding of the terms. Liberal does not refer to left-wing politics, either, and outside of a few random anarchists and socialists there isn't really a left-wing in US politics.
Why would it be landing on the highway? The automobile equivalent to landing is parking in your garage/driveway, not stopping on a highway.
Consider a car travelling at 100km/h compared to a STOL personal air vehicle landing at 100km/h. Which one is closest to obstacles?
There's not nearly enough information in your question to answer it. Is the car driving in the middle of a desert? Is the air vehicle landing in a shopping mall?
They were all humans, whether atheists or Christian. I don't see any need to disavow myself or other people of the status "human" just because other humans have committed atrocities.
Your comment, eh? Then why are you posting anonymously, rather than under the username of the comment you are defending?
Anyway, I wasn't taking comments out of context, as the entirety of the context was claiming that because a word has been used for 50 years means there's nothing wrong with it. There was nothing else to "your" post.
Were you not suspicious of the "military grade" claims? Frankly, you're digging yourself further into a hole. It doesn't sound like you did any due diligence whatsoever - you just bought a product because it was cheaper without doing any research. To anybody with any experience, this scenario would have raised serious questions.
No, they buy tickets online or from a vending machine and get in much faster so there's no reason for the lines anymore.
Which is why I put "line up" in quotation marks, because I'm fully aware that the line to buy tickets is largely obsolete, and has been replaced with virtual versions. What I was getting at, was the amount of excitement for films. I don't think many people care much about films anymore, or at least not for seeing them at release.
A person who looked at their website, noticed that it is US based and has several high-end products.
Doesn't that make it worse? Asian companies are known for having terrible English-language brand names, but there must be some kind of super-incompetence for a US-based company to make the same mistake.
Back then it was the *ONLY* solid state drive in that capacity that did not cost more than $10K.
Didn't that raise any alarm bells for you? Did you not for one moment think that "lack of quality" might be the reason behind this massive price discrepancy? I mean, do you buy watches from street vendors claiming to have genuine Rolex watches, or what?
What's the signal for "Windows has crashed and I have to wait for it to reboot"?
It's known in the industry as "the inverted chair."
Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently
When it comes to backups, that's the wrong way to do it.
There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft. This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.
Two aircraft collided over Brazil because of a collision avoidance system? That must be one really shitty system, if it succeeds at doing the exact opposite of what it is designed to do.
You kinda have to if you're going to see something at all. The theaters don't run movies for weeks and weeks anymore.
Why not just buy the tickets online beforehand?
Yes many people do.
Who?
When flash drives became available I talked my company into buying Supertalent 256 GB drive
Who the hell buys a product from a company named "Super Talent"?? I guess I have my answer now, but why they let you buy it is another mystery.
"Super Talent MasterDrive"
"Transcend"
"Patriot Warp"
That might be your problem right there. If these companies can't even think of a decent product name, what makes you think they'll be able to make a decent product?
So, I assume you haven't actually measured the light output, you know, scientifically? After all, looking directly at the bulbs with the human eye is not a very accurate measure.