Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Even discussion about missing features should be encouraged because even if the original poster can't code, someone else who can may read the discussion thread.
Absolutely. That's why I find the standard response of "well fix it yourself" to be so boorish and irritating. Criticisms should not be dismissed simply because they come from someone who's not a programmer. I think you put it very eloquently when you talk about helping people to contribute.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 0, Troll
If you can't code or at least understand the system enough to make constructive criticisms and suggestions for improvements then you really should just shut up and accept what you get because talking from ignorance just reduces the signal to noise and makes it harder for those who do have a clue to get on with improving the stuff you use.
... and people wonder why Linux adoption remains so low.
This is referring to taking lots of pictures in a short spaces of time (i.e. a few seconds) where the over head of a biometric scan would effect performance.
What? Where does it say that this only applies to rapid sequence of images? It would affect performance, even for a single photo.
That's absolute horseshit, and revisionist history. Of course there were ghettos before the 20th Century. Never heard of mining camps? Of sharecropping? They just don't look the same as modern ones, because of the lower population densities. There have always been areas where the poor and downtrodden conglomerate.
Maybe other countries have figured out how to have welfare without creating a permanent underclass which doesn't work (except for dealing drugs), but in around 40 years we certainly haven't.
Well, it's pretty much directly proportional to the quality of welfare and social services. If we made welfare any worse in the USA (or elimated it), then things would start to look more like Nigeria pretty darn quickly. Our welfare system is substandard, and it needs to be boosted. Then you'll see an improvement. Almost anywhere you look in the world, the nature of the "ghettos" is almost precisely proportional to how good the welfare system is.
As for "helping one another", the people on welfare don't want to be helped up, they want to be helped out; they want a free ride. Good luck getting them to pitch in any effort of their own.
More unsubstantiated bullshit. Thanks for proving that your worldview is based on nothing but bigotry and a sense of superiority.
Since the Constitution is mute on the point of marijuana, the Right to legislate and control its usage is left to the States.
Well, it could be argued that it falls under "the pursuit of happiness," but that is neither here nor there. How does this make Ron Paul in favor of legalizing marijuana? The answer is that it doesn't. He's being deliberately vague on what he actually believes about marijuana usage. Thus, people mistakenly believe he supports marijuana use, just because he doesn't support federal laws against its use
The needs and desires of the citizens of South Dakota are worlds different than the needs and desires of the citizens of California. This is not conjecture, this is not personal opinion, this is a direct observation.
But why do those needs have to be legislated differently? They can live their own lives in different ways, without the state having to legislate a particular lifestyle. And what of change? What if the residents decide they want to live in a different way than their parents did?
Not protecting Human Rights? Now you're just being silly. Our Constitution has been the beacon of Human Rights and dignities for over two centuries.
Excuse me? Torture? Wiretapping? Detention without charges? The Constitution has been positively stomped on, and I don't see the perpetrators being punished at all for it, nor any redress being made.
At this time there are no stories of States trampling on the Constitution, so any what-if conjectures that you raise are merely that, conjectures.
There have been numerous reports of states violating the separation of church and state, and making moves to ban gay marriage. Denying people abortions. Plenty of reports of state/private employees abusing human rights with the use of tasers and batons, etc.
The term libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, as long as they allow others the same liberty.
Right.... so how do you reconcile that with being a member of, and supporter of, the Republican party? The Republicans generally believe exactly the opposite of that philosophy.
He found out about what was happening by a third party. He was not receiving the letters.
So, why wasn't he monitoring the newsletter? And why do you keep making excuses for Paul?
The president of the NAACP came out in defense of Ron Paul, as once again his actions in his personal life, medical practice, and political records clearly show he is anything but racist.
So, if he's not racist, then he's incompetent in running his affairs? That doesn't look very good either. Who wants an incompetent President who doesn't know what's going on around him?
But my guess is that if you have the support of the NAACP president, you're probably not a racist.
That "logic" doesn't make sense at all. The NAACP has many racist members.
No, I'm not missing that at all. I know that. How does his being a strict Constitutionalist mean that he is advocating marijuana legalization? It doesn't. That's the misconception I was trying to clear up.
Which is a good thing, because the needs and desires of citizens of Montana are quite different from the needs and desires of the citizens of New York.
In your opinion, it's a good thing. It's not objectively so. Personally, I think it would likely end up in disaster. I also don't agree that people have vastly different needs - we have the same basic needs, food, shelter, companionship, human rights. The state-based solution only works if the Constitution aggressively protects people and rights. But as we've seen of late, it hasn't been so good at doing so. What happens if Montana starts abusing human rights? How quickly will the Feds roll out the troops to stop them? Especially if "Libertarians" essentially dismantle the federal government.
It's a rather chicken-and-egg problem. If Libertarians are all about rights and the Constitution, but also feel it should be downsized and the power placed in the hands of states, then who will be left to stop the states from their excesses?
Sigh... Ron Paul fully supports the right of the state you live in to put you in jail for smoking pot or hiring a hooker. I don't think you fully understand his position and the consequences of it.
And he did nothing to stop it, until he we caught out... what does that say about him? Never mind that the people who wrote it under his name were employed by him to do so.
Look at countries without any form of welfare. They tend not to have nice cities with a few bad "ghettos" - most of the country is a form of ghetto, often rules by militias. Ghettos aren't a result of welfare. They are pretty much the default condition. It's through community efforts and helping one another that we get nice cities and towns.
He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security).
No, he does not support legalizing marijuana or gay marriage. I can't believe how many slashdotters fall for his smoke and mirrors. All he says is that he is against federal laws about marijuana and gay marriage. He believes it is up to the states to make these things criminal (or not). But given the way most states act, the "or not" is a very slim proposition. Most states would probably enact even harsher anti-marijuana and anti-gay laws.
But his little ruse works a treat in getting people to think he "supports" these issues.
Those letters WERE written by a ghostwriter, and have been widely discredited.
How is them being written by a ghostwriter any excuse? A ghostwriter is somebody employed to write things on your behalf. How is using a ghostwriter a defense against charges of racism?
As for them being discredited, what do you mean by that? Do you mean they weren't real? I've never seen anybody claim that Ron Paul's newsletter was a forgery or didn't exist.
When Ron Paul finally saw what was going on, he fired the people responsible.
So, why did it take him so long to find out what was being said in his name, in his "own" newsletter?
Uhhh, question 2 is "Why can't I get a straight answer?" - the part of Q2 that you quoted is irrelevant fluff. The contradiction is that he claimed to be all about giving straightforward answers in Q2 - but then gave misleading non-answers for pretty much every other question.
Great plan! I'm sure the state of Florida will stand up against some multinational conglomarate that controls the vast majority of software development world wide and provide a viable market in which that company is not allowed to interfere with it's competitors via strong arming the market with it's monopoly.
Hmmm... I didn't know Disney was a software developer. I guess some people consider the content on DVD videos to be "software," so you may have a point.
he flat out states that Iraq was dumb and that pot should be legal.
No, he doesn't say "pot should be legal". He says there should be no federal laws against it. While at the same time, he supports the right for states to make it criminal. It's exactly the same with abortion. He opposes federal legislation - but that doesn't mean he's pro-choice.
It's a weasely way of goling about things. You claim to be all about freedom, while leaving a nice little escape clause. All it does is change who the oppressors are. "Hooray! We are free from the evile Federal Government!" Now, meet your friendly State government. Given the history of the USA, does anybody believe that the states aren't even more likely to violate freedoms than the federal government? Most of the really nasty stuff (lynching, witch burning, religious slaughter) was perpetrated on a state level, not federally.
Where do you get the idea from that he doesn't want to reduce NASA's budget? It's right there in the reply - he only sees NASA as useful as far as it relates to national security. Since 90% of what NASA does is not related to national security in any way, then there is obviously a lot of room to reduce the size of NASA drastically.
But you think he might want to double NASA's budget? Wow, that's a very odd interpretation, and goes against everything he claims to stand for.
Hunger is a lack of food. You are talking about the social problems of food distribution and access to resources.
If it makes you happy to believe you've scored some big debate point, be my guest! I'm happy to oblige.
No, I'm just stunned that you're so stubborn, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This would never be an issue if you didn't use terminology incorrectly in the first place. Be more precise about what you mean. Using deliberately misleading language isn't going to help your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. That's why I find the standard response of "well fix it yourself" to be so boorish and irritating. Criticisms should not be dismissed simply because they come from someone who's not a programmer. I think you put it very eloquently when you talk about helping people to contribute.
If Spore delivers what it promises, shouldn't we be able to use it to create Duke Nukem Forever?
And the voice of House is played by Hugh Laurie.
... and people wonder why Linux adoption remains so low.
What? Where does it say that this only applies to rapid sequence of images? It would affect performance, even for a single photo.
That's absolute horseshit, and revisionist history. Of course there were ghettos before the 20th Century. Never heard of mining camps? Of sharecropping? They just don't look the same as modern ones, because of the lower population densities. There have always been areas where the poor and downtrodden conglomerate.
Maybe other countries have figured out how to have welfare without creating a permanent underclass which doesn't work (except for dealing drugs), but in around 40 years we certainly haven't.Well, it's pretty much directly proportional to the quality of welfare and social services. If we made welfare any worse in the USA (or elimated it), then things would start to look more like Nigeria pretty darn quickly. Our welfare system is substandard, and it needs to be boosted. Then you'll see an improvement. Almost anywhere you look in the world, the nature of the "ghettos" is almost precisely proportional to how good the welfare system is.
As for "helping one another", the people on welfare don't want to be helped up, they want to be helped out; they want a free ride. Good luck getting them to pitch in any effort of their own.More unsubstantiated bullshit. Thanks for proving that your worldview is based on nothing but bigotry and a sense of superiority.
Well, it could be argued that it falls under "the pursuit of happiness," but that is neither here nor there. How does this make Ron Paul in favor of legalizing marijuana? The answer is that it doesn't. He's being deliberately vague on what he actually believes about marijuana usage. Thus, people mistakenly believe he supports marijuana use, just because he doesn't support federal laws against its use
The needs and desires of the citizens of South Dakota are worlds different than the needs and desires of the citizens of California. This is not conjecture, this is not personal opinion, this is a direct observation.But why do those needs have to be legislated differently? They can live their own lives in different ways, without the state having to legislate a particular lifestyle. And what of change? What if the residents decide they want to live in a different way than their parents did?
Not protecting Human Rights? Now you're just being silly. Our Constitution has been the beacon of Human Rights and dignities for over two centuries.Excuse me? Torture? Wiretapping? Detention without charges? The Constitution has been positively stomped on, and I don't see the perpetrators being punished at all for it, nor any redress being made.
At this time there are no stories of States trampling on the Constitution, so any what-if conjectures that you raise are merely that, conjectures.There have been numerous reports of states violating the separation of church and state, and making moves to ban gay marriage. Denying people abortions. Plenty of reports of state/private employees abusing human rights with the use of tasers and batons, etc.
Right.... so how do you reconcile that with being a member of, and supporter of, the Republican party? The Republicans generally believe exactly the opposite of that philosophy.
So, why wasn't he monitoring the newsletter? And why do you keep making excuses for Paul?
The president of the NAACP came out in defense of Ron Paul, as once again his actions in his personal life, medical practice, and political records clearly show he is anything but racist.So, if he's not racist, then he's incompetent in running his affairs? That doesn't look very good either. Who wants an incompetent President who doesn't know what's going on around him?
But my guess is that if you have the support of the NAACP president, you're probably not a racist.That "logic" doesn't make sense at all. The NAACP has many racist members.
No, I'm not missing that at all. I know that. How does his being a strict Constitutionalist mean that he is advocating marijuana legalization? It doesn't. That's the misconception I was trying to clear up.
Which is a good thing, because the needs and desires of citizens of Montana are quite different from the needs and desires of the citizens of New York.In your opinion, it's a good thing. It's not objectively so. Personally, I think it would likely end up in disaster. I also don't agree that people have vastly different needs - we have the same basic needs, food, shelter, companionship, human rights. The state-based solution only works if the Constitution aggressively protects people and rights. But as we've seen of late, it hasn't been so good at doing so. What happens if Montana starts abusing human rights? How quickly will the Feds roll out the troops to stop them? Especially if "Libertarians" essentially dismantle the federal government.
It's a rather chicken-and-egg problem. If Libertarians are all about rights and the Constitution, but also feel it should be downsized and the power placed in the hands of states, then who will be left to stop the states from their excesses?
Sigh... Ron Paul fully supports the right of the state you live in to put you in jail for smoking pot or hiring a hooker. I don't think you fully understand his position and the consequences of it.
And he did nothing to stop it, until he we caught out... what does that say about him? Never mind that the people who wrote it under his name were employed by him to do so.
Look at countries without any form of welfare. They tend not to have nice cities with a few bad "ghettos" - most of the country is a form of ghetto, often rules by militias. Ghettos aren't a result of welfare. They are pretty much the default condition. It's through community efforts and helping one another that we get nice cities and towns.
No, he does not support legalizing marijuana or gay marriage. I can't believe how many slashdotters fall for his smoke and mirrors. All he says is that he is against federal laws about marijuana and gay marriage. He believes it is up to the states to make these things criminal (or not). But given the way most states act, the "or not" is a very slim proposition. Most states would probably enact even harsher anti-marijuana and anti-gay laws.
But his little ruse works a treat in getting people to think he "supports" these issues.
How is them being written by a ghostwriter any excuse? A ghostwriter is somebody employed to write things on your behalf. How is using a ghostwriter a defense against charges of racism?
As for them being discredited, what do you mean by that? Do you mean they weren't real? I've never seen anybody claim that Ron Paul's newsletter was a forgery or didn't exist.
When Ron Paul finally saw what was going on, he fired the people responsible.So, why did it take him so long to find out what was being said in his name, in his "own" newsletter?
Uhhh, question 2 is "Why can't I get a straight answer?" - the part of Q2 that you quoted is irrelevant fluff. The contradiction is that he claimed to be all about giving straightforward answers in Q2 - but then gave misleading non-answers for pretty much every other question.
Hmmm... I didn't know Disney was a software developer. I guess some people consider the content on DVD videos to be "software," so you may have a point.
No, he doesn't say "pot should be legal". He says there should be no federal laws against it. While at the same time, he supports the right for states to make it criminal. It's exactly the same with abortion. He opposes federal legislation - but that doesn't mean he's pro-choice.
It's a weasely way of goling about things. You claim to be all about freedom, while leaving a nice little escape clause. All it does is change who the oppressors are. "Hooray! We are free from the evile Federal Government!" Now, meet your friendly State government. Given the history of the USA, does anybody believe that the states aren't even more likely to violate freedoms than the federal government? Most of the really nasty stuff (lynching, witch burning, religious slaughter) was perpetrated on a state level, not federally.
Where do you get the idea from that he doesn't want to reduce NASA's budget? It's right there in the reply - he only sees NASA as useful as far as it relates to national security. Since 90% of what NASA does is not related to national security in any way, then there is obviously a lot of room to reduce the size of NASA drastically.
But you think he might want to double NASA's budget? Wow, that's a very odd interpretation, and goes against everything he claims to stand for.
You just made my head explode. How can someone running for the Republican party possibly be a Libertarian?
Hell, his answer to question 2 conflicts with his answer to question 2. But he is a politician, of course.
Hunger is a lack of food. You are talking about the social problems of food distribution and access to resources.
If it makes you happy to believe you've scored some big debate point, be my guest! I'm happy to oblige.No, I'm just stunned that you're so stubborn, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This would never be an issue if you didn't use terminology incorrectly in the first place. Be more precise about what you mean. Using deliberately misleading language isn't going to help your argument.
So, in the future, we'll be working on really tiny desks? That doesn't sound very ergonomic.
Uhh, you could buy $200 computers back in the 1980s. But Windows pushed the prices up.
Your statement is self-contradictory. You need imagination to define hunger correctly? So, what is the correct definition of hunger?
You admitted it was wrong, now you're just backpedalling.