I'm not really sure. It sounds like an "out". As in "we won't fix your keyboard driver because you have a tainted ethernet wrapper". The word "taint" is not just a neutral way of saying "we're not sure if we can support you." It has very clear negative connotations, which I can't see being anything other than political or ideological.
It isn't "we're not sure if we can support you" but rather "we won't support you (using binary blobs)"
There is an easy solution for the keyboard driver issue:
1. Unload NDISWrapper
2. Reproduce bug
3. File bug report
4. Reload NDISWrapper
If the binary blob is not the problem, you're done. If it is, you use your own resources to find that out, not waste other peoples time.
It seems to me that the only thing keeping parents from teaching their children to think critically is a desire to maintain control and avoid being questioned.
This is the zinger. As another home schooling parent I can affirm this. My children are hard to control. They are always wanting reasons etc. The bottom line though, is that if you train them to be easily controlled by you, you produce a child that is easily controlled by anyone.
Like my wife and I, you seem to be teaching a curriculum based on the Liberal Arts "In classical antiquity, the term designated the education proper to a freeman (Latin libera, "free") as opposed to a slave."
Likewise, you say that there is not conflict between science and religion. That is positively false....evangelicals...
He didn't make that claim at all. He stated the current Catholic teaching current teaching is that there is no conflict between science and religion: science seeks to explain "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "How?", religion seeks to explain "Who?" and "Why?" without stating his whether that was his own position. The context made it quite clear that he was talking about the Catholic Church, not evangelicals.
You can drag WW2 into if you want, but then your making a logical error. There's not fixed amount of violence to be had for every generation.
Since nothing I said requires a fixed amount of violence to be had for every generation, you have not given any arguement to support your assertion that I have made a logical error.
...compared to the US'es, in which plenty of organized racial murders have taken place...
You have been indoctrinated with the fantasy that total freedom is somehow attainable (and from the looks of it, the US is the place where its at). You probably buy into the sham that capitalism solves any economical problem magically.... etc, etc.
So by a couple of statements I made in against gun bans, you somehow come to the conclusion that I've been indoctrinated, that I believe in magic, that I don't know how societies are organised or about law and that I'm "either absolutely naive or brainwashed". For someone that claims I made a logical error, you have some serious self examination to do.
If an individual takes up arms against the government, they're just a nut who will probably die quickly and be known as a criminal or terrorist.
If the government does enough to provoke 50 million or so people to arms, the 2nd amendment will serve its purpose. It's unlikely to happen, ever, in my opinion.
Guns for example are forbidden in most EU countries. And murderrates are for most EU-countries magnitudes less than in the US, so yeah, I'd say that's worth it.
Only if you don't count the deaths of citizens at the hands of their own government. How many millions of Europeans have been killed by their own governments (Communists, Nazis) in the last 100 years, then compare that to the US. And don't forget Switzerland, which has very high level of gun ownership (fully automatic as well) but also a low murder rate, both by criminals and governments.
Censorship and gun bans are essentially incapacitating the population for X (security, peace, whatever). This is a monstrously bad idea in general, and depends on the citizen being the permanent "child" or posession of the state.
So stay in the EU, feel quite free to use any political influence to have to get your government to incapacitate you and your neighbors. I will continue to work towards the day when I can emigrate to the US. The dangerous, murderous, freedom loving US.
If you can't see that, then you agree we shouldn't hinder Virginia-Tech-like shooters at all and content ourselves with scraping the brains of our kids of the walls afterwards.
Just not creating the environment in which they happen would be a good start. Like not prohibiting legal carry. It is restriction of freedoms that makes the Virginia-Tech-like shootings possible. Has there ever been a mass shooting at a rifle range? No, they generally choose schools and post offices, so their victims can't shoot back.
"I'm Jewish and I fail to understand how other Jews can vow 'never again' while opposing the only means by which they can assure that it never happens again." - Phillip Morgansen, Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 8, No. 13, refering to the right to keep and bear arms.
A few hundred bucks can be a lot of money with a family.
Yes, and what I said was it if IS a lot of money for a family, the heads of household probably aren't managing their money very well. In that case, choice of OS to install on the family computer should probably be a very low priority. Instead of playing with the computer, the HoH should be figuring out how to make their money situtation less volatile.
Like investing the few hundred dollars instead of spending it on software, perhaps? I am one of those 'heads of households' for whom a few hundred dollars is a lot of money. Not because my money situation is volatile, it's quite stable, growing, and all my bills are paid. It is stable and growing because I direct my discretionary income towards the acquisition of assests instead of directing it to unnecessary expenses. Like Microsoft software, for example, which for me is unnecessary.
"Australians will benefit through closer harmonisation under the AUSFTA of our already strong intellectual property regime with that of the largest intellectual property market in the world."
AUSFTA provisions which effect Australia's regime for the protection of intellectual property augment our already robust regime and balance the interests of IP owners and users. These include:
* Agreement to implement the WIPO Internet Treaties on the treatment of digital copyright material
* An expeditious process that allows for copyright owners to engage with Internet Service Providers and subscribers to deal with allegedly infringing copyright material on the Internet.
* Tighter controls on circumventing technological protection of copyright material
* Agreement on standards of copyright protection
* An increase of 20 years to the term of protection for copyright material
they all know that if they screw up the economy by destroying businesses they will lose those votes
In Australia, most employment is provided by SME's, I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar in the US. Making things harder for large corporations and easier for small business could well stimulate the economy rather than screw it up.
I've seen a comment that perhaps people from religious groups that practice circumcision may be less likely than others to engage in behaviour that spreads HIV. So it may be cultural practice rather than actual circumcision that makes the difference.
It's not that I've missed your point, I've just never heard of it happening. Can you cite any source to show me a juror has been charged with perjury? Or can be? That's why I said:
I'd be interested if you could provide a reference to this actually happening.
In any case, where I live, I suspect they can't stack juries the way they seem to in the US according to what you are saying, so I don't think it would be an issue. When my government tells me "that each jury 'is a little parliament'", giving the example of 13 men being acquited for treason quite contrary to the law of the time, I think I'm on fairly safe ground.
If you lie to get on the jury, you will have committed perjury.... The person will almost certainly face another trial and you will be facing charges.
Since juries are not punished for their verdicts as far as I am aware, an accusation of perjury would have no legal weight. If I'm wrong, and juries can be punished, I'd be interested if you could provide a reference to this actually happening. Even if it has never been enforced but it's on the law books somewhere, it is worth knowing.
These links regarding Australia:
History and Importance of Trial by Jury in a Democratic Society Lord Devlin observed that each jury 'is a little parliament'.
Juries, because they do not give reasons for their decisions, can bring the conscience of the community to bear on issues in a trial in a way that a judge cannot do.
indicate that here, jury nullification is considered to be an important part of the jury system.
Perhaps in the USA it is different, but the wikipedia page on jury nullification indicates that there is still debate about it. "Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law"
If you believe so strongly that your conception of justice is more legitimate than the laws passed by legislature that you cannot take that oath in good faith then you should not sit on a jury.
In principle I agree with you. I haven't been on a jury, so I haven't been faced with such a dilemma. What happens though, when the legislature ingore their oath to uphold the constitution? Or in matters where the legislature has been corrupted? Not really relevant to a murder trial. As an example, I don't think I'd be willing to give someone a criminal conviction for breaking encryption to store a legally purchased movie on their hard drive. The question would be do I get out of jury duty so someone else can give them a criminal conviction, or do I go on the jury and attempt to get them acquited?
I'm not at all keen on breaking my word, but I'm sure that opting out and letting other people to the wrong is a morally superior option.
Look people, that's how our current capitalist/free market system works: each company has responsibility to its shareholders to maximize the business and profits. Why you think Microsoft ownes it to any of you to give away their computer code is beyond me.
First, since business models based on the charging per item for copyright and/or patented software depends entirely on government intervention it is nonsense to call it a free market. It is a market created by the government, on behalf of the people, for a particular purpose, being to promote progress of science and useful arts. Since it is a government created market, it is by nature a government regulated market. To be logically consistent in your application of the idea of a free market system to the software industry you would have to insist on no copyright or patent protection as well. To give the companies protection without regulation is to provide for the domination of the people.
As to code, it's about releasing API documentation, not code.
Moreover, please point out those "less government is better conservatives" who haven't spent the last 8 years supporting George W. Bush's rampant expansion of the federal government.
It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of pretty much any graphics designer professional who has tried the Gimp.
I know you are right. My sister-in-law is a graphics designer professional, she couldn't possibly give up her software in favor of the gimp.
It's a simple fact that it is years or decades away from obsoleting Photoshop.
however my situation is a different case entirely. I like to edit some photos and create/edit some other simple images. Too complex for paint, I prefer to not break the law, I don't want to pay big sums for software that is mostly recreational. The gimp fits my needs perfectly. I suspect there would be many more people with graphics application needs like my own than their are professional graphics designers.
Photoshop is not obsolete for graphics designer professionals, and may never be, but it may as well be obsolete for my purposes.
My understanding is it takes line out and loops it back to line in and re-records it for later use on non-Apple devices with only a 5% degredation of sound? How is this any different from taking the audio files, burning them to a cd and re-ripping them?
You don't need a CD? As I understand it, this is not really designed to do anything that couldn't be done before, it is designed to make those things doable by computer illiterates. You could already recapture audio, you could already fileshare. This lets grandparents and parents do it without even really understanding what the technical obstacles being overcome are.
Your foot bone is connected to your head bone. Not only by a series of other connecting bones, but through a network used to transport substances throughout the body, including the foot bone and head bone, which is called the cardiovascular system. And again, the cardiovascular system is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an easy solution for the keyboard driver issue:
1. Unload NDISWrapper
2. Reproduce bug
3. File bug report
4. Reload NDISWrapper
If the binary blob is not the problem, you're done. If it is, you use your own resources to find that out, not waste other peoples time.
It seems to me that the only thing keeping parents from teaching their children to think critically is a desire to maintain control and avoid being questioned.
This is the zinger. As another home schooling parent I can affirm this. My children are hard to control. They are always wanting reasons etc. The bottom line though, is that if you train them to be easily controlled by you, you produce a child that is easily controlled by anyone.
Like my wife and I, you seem to be teaching a curriculum based on the Liberal Arts "In classical antiquity, the term designated the education proper to a freeman (Latin libera, "free") as opposed to a slave."
* the Trivium
1. grammar
2. rhetoric
3. logic
* the Quadrivium
4. geometry
5. arithmetic
6. music
7. astronomy
less by criminals, orders of magnitude more by governments.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=470472&cid=22609454 - my reply to your other post.
You can drag WW2 into if you want, but then your making a logical error. There's not fixed amount of violence to be had for every generation.
...compared to the US'es, in which plenty of organized racial murders have taken place...
... etc, etc.
Since nothing I said requires a fixed amount of violence to be had for every generation, you have not given any arguement to support your assertion that I have made a logical error.
Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. See if you can connect the dots.
Facts are facts, and that's that EU citizens are safer than US citizens from crime and murder.
If you ignore the millions who were killed by their own governments, yes.
About Switzerland: that's a popular myth, gun ownership is noly slightly higher than in other Euro countries and they are not freely available there
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. I know wikipedia is not an authoratative source, but unless you can provide a source to back your claim, I stand uncorrected.
You have been indoctrinated with the fantasy that total freedom is somehow attainable (and from the looks of it, the US is the place where its at). You probably buy into the sham that capitalism solves any economical problem magically.
So by a couple of statements I made in against gun bans, you somehow come to the conclusion that I've been indoctrinated, that I believe in magic, that I don't know how societies are organised or about law and that I'm "either absolutely naive or brainwashed". For someone that claims I made a logical error, you have some serious self examination to do.
Why should this child be treated as a child in terms of the rights he is afforded, but treated like an adult in the responsibilities he has?
Because he appropriated "rights" commensurate with greater responsibilities when he directed SWAT teams to peoples houses.
While wsanders mentioned the Coast Guard, I believe that he was refering to this: as thuggery, and it fits my idea of violent intimidation.
If an individual takes up arms against the government, they're just a nut who will probably die quickly and be known as a criminal or terrorist.
If the government does enough to provoke 50 million or so people to arms, the 2nd amendment will serve its purpose. It's unlikely to happen, ever, in my opinion.
Guns for example are forbidden in most EU countries. And murderrates are for most EU-countries magnitudes less than in the US, so yeah, I'd say that's worth it.
Only if you don't count the deaths of citizens at the hands of their own government. How many millions of Europeans have been killed by their own governments (Communists, Nazis) in the last 100 years, then compare that to the US. And don't forget Switzerland, which has very high level of gun ownership (fully automatic as well) but also a low murder rate, both by criminals and governments.
Censorship and gun bans are essentially incapacitating the population for X (security, peace, whatever). This is a monstrously bad idea in general, and depends on the citizen being the permanent "child" or posession of the state.
So stay in the EU, feel quite free to use any political influence to have to get your government to incapacitate you and your neighbors. I will continue to work towards the day when I can emigrate to the US. The dangerous, murderous, freedom loving US.
If you can't see that, then you agree we shouldn't hinder Virginia-Tech-like shooters at all and content ourselves with scraping the brains of our kids of the walls afterwards.
Just not creating the environment in which they happen would be a good start. Like not prohibiting legal carry. It is restriction of freedoms that makes the Virginia-Tech-like shootings possible. Has there ever been a mass shooting at a rifle range? No, they generally choose schools and post offices, so their victims can't shoot back.
"I'm Jewish and I fail to understand how other Jews can vow 'never again' while opposing the only means by which they can assure that it never happens again." - Phillip Morgansen, Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 8, No. 13, refering to the right to keep and bear arms.
"Australians will benefit through closer harmonisation under the AUSFTA of our already strong intellectual property regime with that of the largest intellectual property market in the world."
AUSFTA provisions which effect Australia's regime for the protection of intellectual property augment our already robust regime and balance the interests of IP owners and users. These include:
* Agreement to implement the WIPO Internet Treaties on the treatment of digital copyright material
* An expeditious process that allows for copyright owners to engage with Internet Service Providers and subscribers to deal with allegedly infringing copyright material on the Internet.
* Tighter controls on circumventing technological protection of copyright material
* Agreement on standards of copyright protection
* An increase of 20 years to the term of protection for copyright material
ie: we directly imported the DMCA.
they all know that if they screw up the economy by destroying businesses they will lose those votes
In Australia, most employment is provided by SME's, I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar in the US. Making things harder for large corporations and easier for small business could well stimulate the economy rather than screw it up.
I've seen a comment that perhaps people from religious groups that practice circumcision may be less likely than others to engage in behaviour that spreads HIV. So it may be cultural practice rather than actual circumcision that makes the difference.
These links regarding Australia:
History and Importance of Trial by Jury in a Democratic Society
Lord Devlin observed that each jury 'is a little parliament'.
Juries, because they do not give reasons for their decisions, can bring the conscience of the community to bear on issues in a trial in a way that a judge cannot do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Stockade#Trials_for_Sedition_and_High_Treason
13 men caught in armed rebellion were acquitted by the juries, leading to significant legal reform.
indicate that here, jury nullification is considered to be an important part of the jury system.
Perhaps in the USA it is different, but the wikipedia page on jury nullification indicates that there is still debate about it. "Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law"
If you believe so strongly that your conception of justice is more legitimate than the laws passed by legislature that you cannot take that oath in good faith then you should not sit on a jury.
In principle I agree with you. I haven't been on a jury, so I haven't been faced with such a dilemma. What happens though, when the legislature ingore their oath to uphold the constitution? Or in matters where the legislature has been corrupted? Not really relevant to a murder trial. As an example, I don't think I'd be willing to give someone a criminal conviction for breaking encryption to store a legally purchased movie on their hard drive. The question would be do I get out of jury duty so someone else can give them a criminal conviction, or do I go on the jury and attempt to get them acquited?
I'm not at all keen on breaking my word, but I'm sure that opting out and letting other people to the wrong is a morally superior option.
Look people, that's how our current capitalist/free market system works: each company has responsibility to its shareholders to maximize the business and profits. Why you think Microsoft ownes it to any of you to give away their computer code is beyond me.
First, since business models based on the charging per item for copyright and/or patented software depends entirely on government intervention it is nonsense to call it a free market. It is a market created by the government, on behalf of the people, for a particular purpose, being to promote progress of science and useful arts. Since it is a government created market, it is by nature a government regulated market. To be logically consistent in your application of the idea of a free market system to the software industry you would have to insist on no copyright or patent protection as well. To give the companies protection without regulation is to provide for the domination of the people.
As to code, it's about releasing API documentation, not code.
Moreover, please point out those "less government is better conservatives" who haven't spent the last 8 years supporting George W. Bush's rampant expansion of the federal government.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
As to your reasonable requirement, that depends very much on your point of view.
It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of pretty much any graphics designer professional who has tried the Gimp.
I know you are right. My sister-in-law is a graphics designer professional, she couldn't possibly give up her software in favor of the gimp.
It's a simple fact that it is years or decades away from obsoleting Photoshop.
however my situation is a different case entirely. I like to edit some photos and create/edit some other simple images. Too complex for paint, I prefer to not break the law, I don't want to pay big sums for software that is mostly recreational. The gimp fits my needs perfectly. I suspect there would be many more people with graphics application needs like my own than their are professional graphics designers.
Photoshop is not obsolete for graphics designer professionals, and may never be, but it may as well be obsolete for my purposes.
My understanding is it takes line out and loops it back to line in and re-records it for later use on non-Apple devices with only a 5% degredation of sound? How is this any different from taking the audio files, burning them to a cd and re-ripping them?
You don't need a CD? As I understand it, this is not really designed to do anything that couldn't be done before, it is designed to make those things doable by computer illiterates. You could already recapture audio, you could already fileshare. This lets grandparents and parents do it without even really understanding what the technical obstacles being overcome are.
Your foot bone is connected to your head bone. Not only by a series of other connecting bones, but through a network used to transport substances throughout the body, including the foot bone and head bone, which is called the cardiovascular system. And again, the cardiovascular system is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.