So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'? I lived on a farm from ages 5-11. We slaughtered several of our animals for food. That's where the meat comes from after all, or weren't you aware?
Movies taught me that soylent green is people, what do animals have to do with it? Aren't they all gone/extinct?
Maybe you should work out why they have it, since you seem to have some bizarre implied notions about that. HINT: It's about MS sales vp's expensive lunches with CIOs of major companies ensuring that those major companies deploy windows workstations, which inherently encourages their wage slaves to use the same products at home (where they're expected to work for free). That and their underhanded OEM dealings in the 90s, and the inertia of the familiar don't hurt either.
Occam's Razor? How about the fact that we know Russians *exist*?
Do you? Have you ever been to this Russia you speak of? All I know is some other people tell me it exists. Just like they tell me the aliens don't. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.
LaTeX can do all of that stuff, just not via WYSIWYG. Complicated page layouts, varied fonts, image placement, etc. can all be done just as precisely. Plus, it's got far fewer bugs (TeX itself is essentially bug-free, but I can't say the same of some of the lesser used LaTeX macros).
To be fair, there are cases where quantum effects have surprising macro-level effects. Superfluidity of liquid Helium, and Hawking radiation are good examples. Not that I disagree with you in principle (the fallacy being the presupposition of consciousness as being anything other than a low-entropy state that requires constant energy input to maintain itself), but it is perfectly reasonable to think it's possible that quantum chemistry could cause unexpected physiological phenomena (olfaction is one known example of this).
The second movie is probably the most realistic of the lot overall, although the jump out of the airplane with a rubber boat stretches the imagination a bit.
THAT's the part that bothered you? Not the mind control by potion, voodoo doll, or live cardioectomy that doesn't kill the patient?
Nothing but a complete moneypit if we have no actual experiments to run on them that require that kind of scale
And we have plenty, the big ones off the top of my head being nuclear weapons work (as we've replaced live tests with computer simulations entirely), protein folding, climate modelling, and signals intelligence processing. I'm sure other./ers without your childishly narrow experience of the world can think of others.
Apt is a package manager. Portage is a package manager. Slackpkg is a package manager (yes, yes it is, even if it doesn't do dependencies). Yum is a package manager.
Muon, Synaptic, etc. are front ends. Not package managers at all. Hell, with some (probably) minor code changes you could port Synaptic or Muon to work with Portage or Yum instead of Apt.
Refinements are always welcome, but I think every desktop Linux user for the immediate future is going to favour efficiency at the top of the learning curve over intuitivity at the bottom, any day of the week: why else would they think about using Linux?
THIS.
I don't mind improvements to the DEs. I don't care if some distros want to go full retard. But you can pry my bash commands and the ability to configure every part of my system with a basic text editor from my cold dead hands.
Most people like to get hands on before buying expensive hardware. Things like mouse behavior, keyboard quality, etc. matter. Do you buy your cars without test driving them too?
This is like blaming your plumber for your electricity not working, and justifying your idiocy by saying that if the plumber wants serious market share he should fix that too while he's there anyway.
Note that the BAD GUYS wanted to kill all the lawyers in the Shakespear play as they had the nasty habit of trying to uphold the law.
That's clearly not the context of the quote. Yes, the bad guys say it, but it's in the middle of passage describing how awesome things will be once they're in charge in a white-fluffy clouds, puppy dogs, and no lawyers kind of way. The tone of the scene is humorous, but a world without lawyers is lumped in with a bunch of a other hyperbolically good things (seven halfpenny loaves for a penny, three-hooped pots with ten hoops, outlawing small beers, making all food free of charge). There is no sense of cunning plot behind the comment, as if killing the lawyers were some insidious plan; the scene is comic.
In short, the 'kill all the lawyers' comment in context is a utopian joke. A 'wouldn't it be nice, if it weren't impractical?' It is not a comment in the lawyers favor (anymore than the impracticality of making food free is a comment in favor of high food prices).
it is no different than catalog sales and those are also not taxed.
Again with the absurd levels of misinformation in this thread.
They are taxed. If I order goods in a catalog (in California anyway), I am required to pay a use tax on them the same as if I had purchased them in a store in California. The only difference is who mails the check to the state (and, of course, whether or not I actually comply with the law and report my purchase. That people don't do this is the whole reason for the discussion). If I buy something out of state and bring it in (whether mail order, or by driving over) I mail a separate check to the state. If I buy it here, I pay the same amount to the retailer who then mails a check to the state.
The only question is whether the states can force Amazon to collect these taxes. A bunch of ill-informed mouth breathers in this thread seem to think this has something to do with interstate tariffs. It doesn't. It's about use taxes, and the fact that consumers almost never voluntarily pay them even though they are legally required to do so already.
No, you're simply wrong. I'm astounded at the level of flat out wrong statements in this thread. The GP described the reality accurately (at least in California). If I slip over the border to Oregon and buy goods to avoid sales tax, and then I bring them back to California I am legally required to report them and pay the sales tax I would have paid if I had purchased them in California. This isn't some new law that came up because of the internet. It is decades old. It is not unconstitutional. Most (all?) states with sales taxes have a similar rule.
What is arguably unconstitutional is for a state to require an out-of-state party to collect that tax for them (the way a retailer in the state would be required to).
No, they want Amazon to COLLECT your taxes. The same as McDonalds, and Payless Shoes do when you make a purchase and they add sales tax to the bill and then cut the state a check for that amount.
There's a difference between interstate tariffs and sales taxes, which states CAN levy. It's plain old sales tax that is at issue here, not interstate tariffs.
So if I buy a burger from McDonalds made from a cow killed in Nebraska I don't have to pay sales tax in California? Man, I've got to explain that to the Franchise Tax Board here. They've had it all wrong for decades.
Or, more likely, you're at least half-wrong. It is entirely within the states purview to tax transactions within their borders, whether they fall under 'inter-state' or not. What is not generally (or rather, has not been in the past) under their power is to force out of state parties to collect that tax for them. Under current California law, if I buy a product from Amazon I am required to report that purchase and pay the relevant sales tax to the state. Whether or not I do is of course another issue.
The legal question Bezos has raised is not whether the states can impose sales taxes on purchases made from Amazon by their residents. They can. The question is whether the states can force Amazon to collect that tax for them, because their residents aren't following the law and sending in the taxes they owe voluntarily.
I have never understood the US publics horror at body scanners.
That's because you're an idiot.
So they show your junk. Who gives a shit? My junk looks just like my neighbors, and his neighbors, and so on and so on. I could care less if someone downloads a weird photonegative of it.
That has nothing to do with why Americans don't like government searches. This is a country founded on the idea that the government doesn't get to do what it wants just because it wants to. Since the scanners do nothing for security (if you want to find bombs, you get bomb sniffing dogs--anything else is a less effective, and more expensive, boondoggle), there is no reason for them other than because certain government officials want to. In America, that is not ok.
Of course, America never really existed. So perhaps the point is moot.
Slashdot Mirror
So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'? I lived on a farm from ages 5-11. We slaughtered several of our animals for food. That's where the meat comes from after all, or weren't you aware?
Movies taught me that soylent green is people, what do animals have to do with it? Aren't they all gone/extinct?
Seeing as there may not be enough to go around expect them to gorge on the rest of the thing too. Americans expect hearty portions these days.
Seeing as I couldn't buy a laptop without an installed OS, no it wasn't.
Maybe you should work out why they have it, since you seem to have some bizarre implied notions about that. HINT: It's about MS sales vp's expensive lunches with CIOs of major companies ensuring that those major companies deploy windows workstations, which inherently encourages their wage slaves to use the same products at home (where they're expected to work for free). That and their underhanded OEM dealings in the 90s, and the inertia of the familiar don't hurt either.
Congress. All of it.
Occam's Razor? How about the fact that we know Russians *exist*?
Do you? Have you ever been to this Russia you speak of? All I know is some other people tell me it exists. Just like they tell me the aliens don't. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.
LaTeX can do all of that stuff, just not via WYSIWYG. Complicated page layouts, varied fonts, image placement, etc. can all be done just as precisely. Plus, it's got far fewer bugs (TeX itself is essentially bug-free, but I can't say the same of some of the lesser used LaTeX macros).
To be fair, there are cases where quantum effects have surprising macro-level effects. Superfluidity of liquid Helium, and Hawking radiation are good examples. Not that I disagree with you in principle (the fallacy being the presupposition of consciousness as being anything other than a low-entropy state that requires constant energy input to maintain itself), but it is perfectly reasonable to think it's possible that quantum chemistry could cause unexpected physiological phenomena (olfaction is one known example of this).
She's one of their agents actually.
The second movie is probably the most realistic of the lot overall, although the jump out of the airplane with a rubber boat stretches the imagination a bit.
THAT's the part that bothered you? Not the mind control by potion, voodoo doll, or live cardioectomy that doesn't kill the patient?
Nothing but a complete moneypit if we have no actual experiments to run on them that require that kind of scale
And we have plenty, the big ones off the top of my head being nuclear weapons work (as we've replaced live tests with computer simulations entirely), protein folding, climate modelling, and signals intelligence processing. I'm sure other ./ers without your childishly narrow experience of the world can think of others.
The point is not for the job to be easy for your lazy ass, the point is for the code to execute as quickly as possible.
No.
Apt is a package manager. Portage is a package manager. Slackpkg is a package manager (yes, yes it is, even if it doesn't do dependencies). Yum is a package manager.
Muon, Synaptic, etc. are front ends. Not package managers at all. Hell, with some (probably) minor code changes you could port Synaptic or Muon to work with Portage or Yum instead of Apt.
Refinements are always welcome, but I think every desktop Linux user for the immediate future is going to favour efficiency at the top of the learning curve over intuitivity at the bottom, any day of the week: why else would they think about using Linux?
THIS.
I don't mind improvements to the DEs. I don't care if some distros want to go full retard. But you can pry my bash commands and the ability to configure every part of my system with a basic text editor from my cold dead hands.
Most people like to get hands on before buying expensive hardware. Things like mouse behavior, keyboard quality, etc. matter. Do you buy your cars without test driving them too?
To be fair, poorly configured linux servers are pwned all the time.
Is your Ctrl+N key broken?
This is like blaming your plumber for your electricity not working, and justifying your idiocy by saying that if the plumber wants serious market share he should fix that too while he's there anyway.
Note that the BAD GUYS wanted to kill all the lawyers in the Shakespear play as they had the nasty habit of trying to uphold the law.
That's clearly not the context of the quote. Yes, the bad guys say it, but it's in the middle of passage describing how awesome things will be once they're in charge in a white-fluffy clouds, puppy dogs, and no lawyers kind of way. The tone of the scene is humorous, but a world without lawyers is lumped in with a bunch of a other hyperbolically good things (seven halfpenny loaves for a penny, three-hooped pots with ten hoops, outlawing small beers, making all food free of charge). There is no sense of cunning plot behind the comment, as if killing the lawyers were some insidious plan; the scene is comic.
In short, the 'kill all the lawyers' comment in context is a utopian joke. A 'wouldn't it be nice, if it weren't impractical?' It is not a comment in the lawyers favor (anymore than the impracticality of making food free is a comment in favor of high food prices).
it is no different than catalog sales and those are also not taxed.
Again with the absurd levels of misinformation in this thread.
They are taxed. If I order goods in a catalog (in California anyway), I am required to pay a use tax on them the same as if I had purchased them in a store in California. The only difference is who mails the check to the state (and, of course, whether or not I actually comply with the law and report my purchase. That people don't do this is the whole reason for the discussion). If I buy something out of state and bring it in (whether mail order, or by driving over) I mail a separate check to the state. If I buy it here, I pay the same amount to the retailer who then mails a check to the state.
The only question is whether the states can force Amazon to collect these taxes. A bunch of ill-informed mouth breathers in this thread seem to think this has something to do with interstate tariffs. It doesn't. It's about use taxes, and the fact that consumers almost never voluntarily pay them even though they are legally required to do so already.
No, you're simply wrong. I'm astounded at the level of flat out wrong statements in this thread. The GP described the reality accurately (at least in California). If I slip over the border to Oregon and buy goods to avoid sales tax, and then I bring them back to California I am legally required to report them and pay the sales tax I would have paid if I had purchased them in California. This isn't some new law that came up because of the internet. It is decades old. It is not unconstitutional. Most (all?) states with sales taxes have a similar rule.
What is arguably unconstitutional is for a state to require an out-of-state party to collect that tax for them (the way a retailer in the state would be required to).
The states are wanting Amazon to pay YOUR taxes,
No, they want Amazon to COLLECT your taxes. The same as McDonalds, and Payless Shoes do when you make a purchase and they add sales tax to the bill and then cut the state a check for that amount.
There's a difference between interstate tariffs and sales taxes, which states CAN levy. It's plain old sales tax that is at issue here, not interstate tariffs.
So if I buy a burger from McDonalds made from a cow killed in Nebraska I don't have to pay sales tax in California? Man, I've got to explain that to the Franchise Tax Board here. They've had it all wrong for decades.
Or, more likely, you're at least half-wrong. It is entirely within the states purview to tax transactions within their borders, whether they fall under 'inter-state' or not. What is not generally (or rather, has not been in the past) under their power is to force out of state parties to collect that tax for them. Under current California law, if I buy a product from Amazon I am required to report that purchase and pay the relevant sales tax to the state. Whether or not I do is of course another issue.
The legal question Bezos has raised is not whether the states can impose sales taxes on purchases made from Amazon by their residents. They can. The question is whether the states can force Amazon to collect that tax for them, because their residents aren't following the law and sending in the taxes they owe voluntarily.
I have never understood the US publics horror at body scanners.
That's because you're an idiot.
So they show your junk. Who gives a shit? My junk looks just like my neighbors, and his neighbors, and so on and so on. I could care less if someone downloads a weird photonegative of it.
That has nothing to do with why Americans don't like government searches. This is a country founded on the idea that the government doesn't get to do what it wants just because it wants to. Since the scanners do nothing for security (if you want to find bombs, you get bomb sniffing dogs--anything else is a less effective, and more expensive, boondoggle), there is no reason for them other than because certain government officials want to. In America, that is not ok.
Of course, America never really existed. So perhaps the point is moot.