How long have you been primarily using Ubuntu? My current financial institution was chosen because they were one of two who offered product features I wanted, and the other had a website that wouldn't work on linux. About 3 years ago. I've had government pages that wouldn't work a few years ago, not so much now. Things have changed a lot in the last 2-3 years from my experience.
It helps in influencing hardware vendors to provides specs or drivers, for example. And governments to make sure essential services (info, tax returns) are accessible). Number counting types who have influence over things that affect us.
C: The industrial revolution predated worldwide temperature monitoring. The "record", such as it goes, it incomplete.
So temperature records/estimates for those times is not complete enough to refute GW, but complete enough to confirm GW? I'm not arguing against GW here, just pointing out that you seem to be either making a claim consistent with saying that we don't know enought about temperature levels pre industrial revolution to know if warming actually exists, or revealing that you are biased against anti-GW arguments by something other than reason and evidence.
Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written or you meant something else. I'd be happy to be corrected.
Yes, I agree entirely. "Goodwill" built up by deception and other unethical methods deserves no legal protection. The only valid protections of goodwill I have thought of are trademark protection and protection against libel etc. Certainly not a court enforced cover-up, which is what MS seems to want.
If the expression "minimum requirements" is defined as "the very least required to run", then the "minimum requirements" announced are probably a fair bit above what Vista actually demands to run, so that's not quite right.
IIRC, part of the issue is essentially "what is Vista", the arguement being something like: Due to Microsoft's marketing of Aero being indistinguishable from Vista, customers identified Vista as Aero. So a system not capable of running Aero was not capable of running Vista in the sense that the customer had been led to expect.
I could have this wrong. (Have just checked the article: "The year-old case alleges that many of the PCs labeled with a "Vista Capable" sticker in the months before Vista was released were able to run only Home Basic, a version the plaintiffs say lacked some of the most heavily promoted elements of the new operating system.") So it's not that no version of Vista will run, its the customers were lead by MS marketing to expect something they didn't get.
If Slashdot users were designing a product, it would be in development for twenty years because nobody would ever be able to agree on what the product would actually be
The slashdot product is ready now. It is argument. Behold!
Nearly. Goodwill is the value placed on the company's reputation with customers, specifically customer loyalty and its expected influence on future sales.
Yes indeed. As are your personal attacks, mockery and demands that we provide evidence for a historically accurate position, while you make baseless assertions that firearms are ineffective against governments without providing any rationale whatsoever. That is to say, your entire arguement.
I think it's okay for you to have to have a pistol for self defence and/or a rifle for hunting
Which is quite different to having a militia armed for combat. My point stands.
I am telling you that owning guns has nothing to do with protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, so far you have failed to give any evidence to the contrary. Picking random confrontations from the history books is not the same thing as finding a relevant example.
History is on my side. It is your assertion that requires evidence. There has always been incentive to not have civil war. If there is more incentive because of globalisation, that's a good thing. That doesn't mean it can't happen. An armed citizenry would hopefully be seen in the same light, as a disincentive to provocation of a civil war. It's a good thing.
I never said anything about the lack violence in society, I only implied that violence needs to be reduced to achieve more optimum outcomes.
In your post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=526456&cid=23112548
you state: "It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence."
Wow, you did say something about it. You explicitly stated that the purpose of democracy is to "enable solution without the use of violence" while ignoring that every solution enabled by democracy is backed by the threat of violence ie: police force and imprisonment.
Have you ever lived for a relatively long time (more than month) in another country?
Yes.
Do you even understand that our experience in USA is not the 'real world'?
The USA is not the 'real world'. What a.. uh.. fascinating idea. So, tell me, what imaginary world does the USA exist in.
You and the rest of America lives in its own bubble and hey don't understand shit about how the world functions.
Yet somehow, despite this lack of understanding, the USA has become the most popular immigration destination and hugely financially successful. Maybe if other countries could somehow emulate the lack of understanding about how the world functions, their citizens would want to stay there.
Have you considered the possibility that your love affair with guns is simply a product of American cultural predispositions.
Having lived the first 35 years of my life outside the USA, I can confidently state that this is not the case.
I want a rational overview of how guns are going to be the crucial aspect in fighting the government.
Well, when the US government wants to fight another government, among other things they do, they send in men with rifles. I suspect there is some reason for that. Of course, you assert that the USA is not the 'real world', but I haven't found any country that doesn't equip the armed forces with rifles. What do you think? Are they just trying to trick us, or are rifles an effective weapon? Use your brain!
Like I said, what stops the government from catching you before hand?
Certainly not people like you. In any case, I don't want to fight the government. I don't think we're even close to the point that requires such a measure. I just want the citizenry to have the capacity, and for the government to know that. As is the case
LOL, the whole idea that your guns will help you against the government is ridiculous.
Yet historically accurate. The English civil war, the American revolution, the Easter rising leading to the Irish War if Independence, the Eureka stockade, the Battle of Athens. People using guns against their governments being fairly successful at acheiving their aims.
Just think of Bush's wiretrapping programs, you think if the government is worried about an open revolt they are not going to make a list of people of with guns
Like the NICS system you mean? Introduced by the Democrats, remember? Trying to turn the threat of tyrannical government into a "Republican vs Democrat" issue is to completely miss the point.
Again I am not here to take your guns away.
Really? In your previous post you said: "I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff". You say that resistance to government couldn't be successful, but you are in favor of banning the very weapons that would enable it to be successful. You admit that a tyrannical government would confiscate guns before it became too late, and announce your approval of bans on military weapons now. You seem to have clearly stated that your goals regarding guns and the goals of a tyrannical government regarding guns are pretty much identical.
..."Mommy, where is my shotgun? I wana be Rambo and fight the guberment!"...that having a gun somehow magically protects democracy/freedoms...Arnold Schwarzenegger style one line...Marry your gun, take it out to dinner for Valentines Day, hell try copulating with it, I don't care...
It is obvious that you have abandonded reasoned debate at this point. I see no further benefit in discussing this with you unless you confine yourself to presenting reasonable arguements.
What I do care about is discrediting people who think they can protect our fundamental freedoms by joining Rocky and Santa Claus in the local paramilitary organization.
If you had not mentioned Rocky and Santa Claus, perhaps you could have retained some credibility yourself. Next time maybe.
Just out of interest, any reason why you're only quoting 9 and 10 year old news stories?
The gun laws were introduced in 1996. These articles give a picture of the immediate effect.
Anyways, even a 39% increase... over a low gun crime rate isn't as bad as it would be if guns were freely available.
You've got it wrong. It's a 39% increase over when they were freely available. When I was a teenager, I bought my ammunition in Toyworld. When I left school, you could still buy firearms over the counter in QLD. Even military rifles (but not fully automatic). As far as I remember, they didn't even do an ID check.
And a word on nutjobs: my experience is that violent nutjobs almost exclusively get violent on people they are sure they can beat. Just let a few football players antagonise them and you'll see how self-controlled they can be. These are the people that society benefits greatly if they think that they will encounter an armed response.
The laws came in last century. It isnt' 100 years ago you know. The point is there was an immediate increase in violent crime, but you can see the info from this century in my other comment.
The gun restrictions came in last century. The point is that there was an immediate increase in violent crime.
Since you ask though: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology report "Australian crime: facts and figures 2007" (linked pdf) page 23:
Homicide, type of weapon, 2005-6
Knife 33%
Physical force (hands and feet) 18%
Blunt instrument 14%
Other unknown 21%
Firearm 14%
So people are being killed with knives or hands and feet more than 3 times as often as with guns. Great step forward. Colour me unimpressed.
On page 33, knives are used in 33% of armed robberies, firearms in 16%. Yay, at least we don't have guns!
You need a lic for anything larger than an air rifle over here... and you can't just carry one of them around either...
We like it that way.
Speak for yourself:
"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls for a decade - and its lowest arrest rate ever. The growing number of planned, ambush murders this year has put added pressure on the homicide squad."
Herald Sun - Melbourne - 12/11/99
Fatal shootings in Victoria have increased despite the introduction of tighter gun laws in 1996, a (AIC) study has found.
"State's gun deaths rise" - Herald Sun - Victoria - 3/6/99
The Federal Government will crack down on the availability of illegal knives after figures released yesterday showed they were the most common weapon used in homicides.
AIC Report - Sydney Morning Herald - 12/3/99
Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme which removed 225,000 registered and un-registered firearms from circuation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97 after the buyback scheme had been introduced compared with only six in 1995-96 before the scheme started.
"Killing rise in gun hunt" - Herald Sun - Melbourne - 23/12/98
Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan yesterday expressed "grave concern" as the number of armed robberies across the state took a big jump for the second year running.
Sunshine Coast Daily - 13/11/98
The numbers of armed robberies which included a knife are now increasing at a much slower rate that those that involved a firearm."
Trevor Griffin - 5/11/98 - South Australia Attorney-General - The Advertiser
Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures)
"Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98
Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre...the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)...assaults involving guns jumped 28%.
Armed Crime on rise - The Sunday Mail - Brisbane - 18/10/98
So then, why did not the 80% form a consensus that they should vote 'no'?
Consensus is general agreement. If you have 20% saying yes, 80% saying no, that's not consensus. There was no vote taken. So essentially, if there was a vote, it would easily have been "no". On two comments, there was consensus "no" (and yes for two comments). With the majority in favor of "no" but no consensus (ie: 20% in favor of "yes") rather than vote, one of the "yes"ers made the decision himself, making the whole effort to find consensus a charade.
we refer to people as 'unskilled' rather then 'de-skilled'
Unskilled may be an unfortunate choice of word to use, but it has a specific meaning, being someone whose job requires less than 2 years training.
Where I work, a large proportion of workers are "unskilled". Some are pretty highly skilled "unskilled" workers. You could certainly not take them out and drop in replacements who didn't know what they were doing and stay in business.
It's the socialeconomic structure that's broken, mostly because it *requires* penniless and poor and impoverished people in order to work.
Not true.
Actually, it is true. It isn't the requirement of skilled or unskilled labor that is the cause, it's the system of using fractional reserve lending to provide money supply. It means that the available dollars being released is always less that the debt produced, since the dollars are produced as debt at interest. Therefore, somebody will be unable to pay their debt, guaranteed.
and since its quantum physics, that means you can have free will, and be subject to fate at the same time!
... and yet if you made a similar apparently contradictory statement regarding religion, you would be considered illogical. Quantum physics is science though, so it is ok.
Seriously, I don't understand quantum physics. It seems that any sufficiently advance knowledge automatically appears to be foolishness to those not prepared to learn it. (Using prepared as in mental preparation, not willingness)
Fedore Fan Crew - here's your chance to get a Debian/Ubuntu guy to give Fedora a try next time around.
Why? I use Fedora and CentOS, with an occasional boot into Ubuntu. Quite happy with CentOS+rpmforge, sometimes recompile packages from Fedora to fill my needs. Ubuntu looks good, but I don't see what I would gain that would be enough incentive to switch, since I would have to learn things to make Ubuntu behave the way I want.
For an experienced user of one of them, what is so different about the other that would motivate a switch?
Who want's images? Just put the install kernel and initrd in/boot and boot into the installer, install via http or ftp. Download just the packages you want to install.
Thanks. But there should be some way of fighting a tyrannical oppressive system without resorting to guns. Isn't that why we have democracy?
No, we have democracy because tyrannical oppressive systems were resisted by force of arms.
Which of our political liberties was not gained by force of arms?
The Magna Carta, giving habeas corpus. Democracy itself by the English civil war, which also, along with the protestant reformation (backed by force of arms) paved the way for religious freedom. As Chairman Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The right to bear arms does not (in my mind) have armed conflict as the goal. The potential for armed conflict is the incentive to bring a tyrant to the negotiating table. Without that incentive, the tyrant will oppress. Ghandi would have been killed by the Russians or Chinese. It took much preparation by armed men over the centuries to prepare a political environment that would yield to non-violence. Once britain was no longer in power, Ghandi was shot. Now India has nukes. Pacifism doesn't work.
Didn't they really only take away semi-automatics?
No, many other guns (that could have been licensed) got handed in as well, and acquiring guns became much more difficult.
You know, the one's that can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time?
No. Accuracy of fire is what allows you to kill. There have been multiple instances of people letting off large amounts of ammunition without a very high kill rate. You might note that US Marine snipers use a modified Remington 700, a bolt action rifle, regular forces use automatic weapons, yet snipers are more feared than regular soldiers. Take some time to ponder this.
they put a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and it was made mandatory that you have a firearms license and register each firearm you own.
They also changed the law so that self defense is not a legal use of firearms. This is well worth your serious consideration. If you don't have a right to the means of self defense, you don't have the right to self defense, even it that right is still technically there, it doesn't exist in practice. If you don't have the right to self defense, you don't have the right to life. It could hardly be overestimated what an enormous step this change was on our path to totalitarianism. We maintain the facade of freedom, but the essential rights that uphold it are no longer there. Most people haven't even noticed yet.
Slashdot Mirror
How long have you been primarily using Ubuntu? My current financial institution was chosen because they were one of two who offered product features I wanted, and the other had a website that wouldn't work on linux. About 3 years ago. I've had government pages that wouldn't work a few years ago, not so much now. Things have changed a lot in the last 2-3 years from my experience.
It helps in influencing hardware vendors to provides specs or drivers, for example. And governments to make sure essential services (info, tax returns) are accessible). Number counting types who have influence over things that affect us.
Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written or you meant something else. I'd be happy to be corrected.
Yes, I agree entirely. "Goodwill" built up by deception and other unethical methods deserves no legal protection. The only valid protections of goodwill I have thought of are trademark protection and protection against libel etc. Certainly not a court enforced cover-up, which is what MS seems to want.
I could have this wrong. (Have just checked the article: "The year-old case alleges that many of the PCs labeled with a "Vista Capable" sticker in the months before Vista was released were able to run only Home Basic, a version the plaintiffs say lacked some of the most heavily promoted elements of the new operating system.") So it's not that no version of Vista will run, its the customers were lead by MS marketing to expect something they didn't get.
Nearly. Goodwill is the value placed on the company's reputation with customers, specifically customer loyalty and its expected influence on future sales.
Yes indeed. As are your personal attacks, mockery and demands that we provide evidence for a historically accurate position, while you make baseless assertions that firearms are ineffective against governments without providing any rationale whatsoever. That is to say, your entire arguement.
Which is quite different to having a militia armed for combat. My point stands.
History is on my side. It is your assertion that requires evidence. There has always been incentive to not have civil war. If there is more incentive because of globalisation, that's a good thing. That doesn't mean it can't happen. An armed citizenry would hopefully be seen in the same light, as a disincentive to provocation of a civil war. It's a good thing.
In your post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=526456&cid=23112548
you state: "It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence."
Wow, you did say something about it. You explicitly stated that the purpose of democracy is to "enable solution without the use of violence" while ignoring that every solution enabled by democracy is backed by the threat of violence ie: police force and imprisonment.
Yes.
The USA is not the 'real world'. What a .. uh .. fascinating idea. So, tell me, what imaginary world does the USA exist in.
Yet somehow, despite this lack of understanding, the USA has become the most popular immigration destination and hugely financially successful. Maybe if other countries could somehow emulate the lack of understanding about how the world functions, their citizens would want to stay there.
Having lived the first 35 years of my life outside the USA, I can confidently state that this is not the case.
Well, when the US government wants to fight another government, among other things they do, they send in men with rifles. I suspect there is some reason for that. Of course, you assert that the USA is not the 'real world', but I haven't found any country that doesn't equip the armed forces with rifles. What do you think? Are they just trying to trick us, or are rifles an effective weapon? Use your brain!
Certainly not people like you. In any case, I don't want to fight the government. I don't think we're even close to the point that requires such a measure. I just want the citizenry to have the capacity, and for the government to know that. As is the case
And a word on nutjobs: my experience is that violent nutjobs almost exclusively get violent on people they are sure they can beat. Just let a few football players antagonise them and you'll see how self-controlled they can be. These are the people that society benefits greatly if they think that they will encounter an armed response.
darkgreen got it right. You can see a link (and my comments) on the 2007 report from the Australian Institute of Criminology in my other comment.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=528966&cid=23155338
The laws came in last century. It isnt' 100 years ago you know. The point is there was an immediate increase in violent crime, but you can see the info from this century in my other comment.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=528966&cid=23155338
The gun restrictions came in last century. The point is that there was an immediate increase in violent crime.
Since you ask though: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology report "Australian crime: facts and figures 2007" (linked pdf) page 23:
Homicide, type of weapon, 2005-6
Knife 33%
Physical force (hands and feet) 18%
Blunt instrument 14%
Other unknown 21%
Firearm 14%
So people are being killed with knives or hands and feet more than 3 times as often as with guns. Great step forward. Colour me unimpressed.
On page 33, knives are used in 33% of armed robberies, firearms in 16%. Yay, at least we don't have guns!
"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls for a decade - and its lowest arrest rate ever. The growing number of planned, ambush murders this year has put added pressure on the homicide squad."
Herald Sun - Melbourne - 12/11/99
Fatal shootings in Victoria have increased despite the introduction of tighter gun laws in 1996, a (AIC) study has found.
"State's gun deaths rise" - Herald Sun - Victoria - 3/6/99
The Federal Government will crack down on the availability of illegal knives after figures released yesterday showed they were the most common weapon used in homicides.
AIC Report - Sydney Morning Herald - 12/3/99
Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme which removed 225,000 registered and un-registered firearms from circuation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97 after the buyback scheme had been introduced compared with only six in 1995-96 before the scheme started.
"Killing rise in gun hunt" - Herald Sun - Melbourne - 23/12/98
Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan yesterday expressed "grave concern" as the number of armed robberies across the state took a big jump for the second year running.
Sunshine Coast Daily - 13/11/98
The numbers of armed robberies which included a knife are now increasing at a much slower rate that those that involved a firearm."
Trevor Griffin - 5/11/98 - South Australia Attorney-General - The Advertiser
Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures)
"Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98
Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre...the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)...assaults involving guns jumped 28%.
Armed Crime on rise - The Sunday Mail - Brisbane - 18/10/98
What exactly is it that you like about it?
Where I work, a large proportion of workers are "unskilled". Some are pretty highly skilled "unskilled" workers. You could certainly not take them out and drop in replacements who didn't know what they were doing and stay in business.
Seriously, I don't understand quantum physics. It seems that any sufficiently advance knowledge automatically appears to be foolishness to those not prepared to learn it. (Using prepared as in mental preparation, not willingness)
Technology zealots, obviously.
For an experienced user of one of them, what is so different about the other that would motivate a switch?
For the Fedora 9 Beta:
http://ftp.ndlug.nd.edu/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/9-Beta/Fedora/i386/os/isolinux/vmlinuz
http://ftp.ndlug.nd.edu/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/9-Beta/Fedora/i386/os/isolinux/initrd.img
For http install you would need either:
http://ftp.ndlug.nd.edu/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/9-Beta/Fedora/i386/os/
or
http://ftp.ndlug.nd.edu/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/9-Beta/Fedora/i386/os/Packages (the first I think)
Which of our political liberties was not gained by force of arms?
The Magna Carta, giving habeas corpus. Democracy itself by the English civil war, which also, along with the protestant reformation (backed by force of arms) paved the way for religious freedom. As Chairman Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The right to bear arms does not (in my mind) have armed conflict as the goal. The potential for armed conflict is the incentive to bring a tyrant to the negotiating table. Without that incentive, the tyrant will oppress. Ghandi would have been killed by the Russians or Chinese. It took much preparation by armed men over the centuries to prepare a political environment that would yield to non-violence. Once britain was no longer in power, Ghandi was shot. Now India has nukes. Pacifism doesn't work.
"They", huh?
Cheeky polititian! That's the second LDP candidate's post I've seen this week. You guys all come here?