The rest of it was almost credible, but Nero ffs? No way you are serious. You are rejecting linux because it doesnt run the crappiest package of binaries on the planet natively? Great, stick with windows, get what you deserve.
Most hunters dont want to eat it, they simply want to kill it. This is why Rabbit, Kangaroo, Brumby (horse) and pigeon aren't on the menu.
Those arent hunters, those are just what you call 'yobbos' down under. I lived there for an extended time myself, and if you try to BS me that your country isnt just as full of yobbos as mine is full of idiots I will just laugh at you.
If the hunters aren't doing anything illegal (last time I checked, pidgeons were not a protected species), why are they shooting down the drones as destruction of other people's property is a serious crime (the legality of taping the hunters aside, two wrongs don't make a right).
Deliberately send your property flying over my property line like these guys are doing and it isnt a matter of two wrongs. Only one - yours. Invade my property and lose your invader - and be damn glad you dont lose a lot more.
I used to raise chickens too. Growing up on a farm with a good chicken population cured me of the desire to eat the things. They are trash. They eat whatever they can peck up. If you pour out grain they will eat it - along with everything else on the ground, including their own feces. If you neglect to feed them they will happily peck up that feces without any filler. 'Free range' chickens are a joke - they are just chickens left to their own devices, which means ~80% of their diet is feces instead of only ~20%. Chickens have a brain smaller than my thumb and if you were to predict their behaviour based on that you would overestimate their intelligence by several orders of magnitude. It is probably impossible to exaggerate just how dumb these things are - anything close to the truth would seem unbelievable to those that dont have experience keeping them.
Pigeons, by comparison, are bloody geniuses. And they are still only a little smarter than a grasshopper.
It flew across a road, got hit, and flew part of the way back after. That doesnt mean it was over the road when hit, and nothing I saw marked that road as public rather than private either.
I guess since I already accepted years ago that many of the newest and hottest games are not available to me (since I wont install STEAM or other DRM) I may not be the demographic this was aimed at. However I am a longtime gamer who has put unbelievable amounts of time and money into my games over the years. I love games, and if most of my games are old it's simply because most of the new ones require DRM that I am never going to install on my machine, period.
I am running windows because it is required for work, not because it is required for my games. I am not sure how many would run under WINE today but I bet a pretty good percentage - last time I had a dedicated linux machine I remember WINE handling a good percentage of my games. Unfortunately work is not so liberal. A large and critical portion of my required software load wont run without windows. Because of poor programming, absolutely, but I still need my paycheck.
And frankly, I wouldnt want Linux to take the sort of steps that would be necessary to change that situation from that end. I have to use windows because my job is support - supporting crappy software. Even if there werent specific required tools that would fail, I still need to eat the dogfood I am supporting to really do a good job supporting it. Changing it enough to make it usable for my work, or for my games, would just be making it into the same crap I want to get away from. Better to wait a few more paychecks till I can afford a second machine for my own use, then I will have the dogfood I need to eat in front of me, and a real useful system off to the side - and the ability to use the best parts of each to accomplish my tasks.
If you want a free windows clone support ReactOS, please dont make Linux into a windows clone instead. That would be the definition of tragedy.
It's clearly a lawful act, the legality may be questioned and I would recommend a lawyer on that count, should any of the actors face prosecution. There are bad laws on the book that one wouldnt want to be convicted under, since appeals consume time and money with no guarantee of justice. But the right to defend ones lawful property is the very heart and soul of law so a judgement, should one ever come, in favour if Mr Hindi and his gang of merry jackasses would be a judgement contrary to law and justice.
No, you are posting bullshit. Using the same measurements that were used to scare us prior to 1988, there has been no significant warming since. For years the IPCC cabal responded simply that x years is too few to be a trend. So-called 'scientist' Phil Jones insisted that 15 years just was too short to show a trend (for what it's worth that might be the first true words the man has ever spoken - my question is why did he not realise this back when he was claiming that 15 years of warming DID prove a whole lot?) Of course that dodge only worked for a few years, and since warming hasnt come back, they had to find some way to resurrect it. Simple, really, just change the measurements. No significant warming in air temp over land, but surely something has increased? There we go, certain measures of ocean temperatures *have* increased. So the air-temp readings that were the basis for the case 10 years ago are suddenly pushed aside in favour of a different source of information that conforms to the confirmation bias of the researchers involved. No surprise when you realise these are basically the same people that came up with the hockey-stick by merging several different data-sets, using one set for one year and a different one for the next to get the effect they were looking for while while making it appear to be a single consistent measurement.
I understand that most people can lie easily if they believe it is for a good cause, but scaring the human race back into the dark ages is not a good cause, and I shudder at the thought of trying to understand someone so messed up they think it is.
Lovelock is old now but he's a real scientist. He can admit when his theory is wrong and revise.
The key IPCC players were never real scientists. They hitched their boat to a hypothesis that was politically valuable and parlayed rich careers out of it, and they will never admit they were wrong.
But what they are doing is still perfectly legal, and the idiots that are harassing them are even bigger idiots than they are. Flying a surveillance drone over private property, knowing that the owner is armed and does not consent, is dumb. Crying about it when they inevitably and properly blow your stupid drone out of the air is great though. It would serve Steve Hindi right if they shot him instead of his toy. Not that I would encourage anyone to do that - he isnt worth it. Self-righteous bastards like that come with a martyr complex - he would probably jump in front of the bullet if he was fast enough.
Please elaborate on how this is a good thing, because I'm really confused about it. To me it sounds like, the police finally found a way to identify a murderer, but then this 5th amendment thingy comes in and it gets thrown out on a technicality. What's good about that?
It's a mixed blessing for sure. Unfortunately it seems to be the best practical possibility. The idea with the 5th Amendment is to prohibit and thus prevent the Police from doing things they shouldnt do. Ideally, this could be seen as completely separate from the parallel task of convicting parties who have been caught and whose guilt is proven. This would mean that, if the police for example conducted an illegal search, and thereby found the evidence to put a murderer away, the murdere should be put away, the evidence should be used, but the policeman responsible would also be facing serious charges as well.
In practice, the courts figured out very early on that this simply is not practically possible. Police routinely put mutual protection (the "thin blue line" and "brotherhood" mentality) above their oath and above the law. Police almost never investigate other police. Police and prosecutors have to work very closely together and as a result prosecutors are *extremely* averse to investigating or charging policemen, no matter how clear their guilt. Judges are loath to cross police as well, even if less so, but Judges normally cannot do anything without the police investigating and the prosecutor filing charges anyway. So, in practice, police are above the law and cannot be held responsible for their crimes in any but the most unusual situation.
Acknowledging these facts, our courts fell back pretty quickly to a different position. If they cannot punish police who break the law directly then all they can do is remove the incentive that leads them to their criminal behaviour in the first place. Why do police perform illegal searches? To gain evidence, to secure convictions. So if you cannot directly punish them for doing this, what else can you do about it? Take away the incentive. If police know that any evidence they find will be excluded at trial anyway, they should no longer have any incentive to perform illegal searches. It's very sad when the result is a clearly guilty person walking away unpunished, but what is the alternative here? Even as-is, police still perform a steady stream of illegal searches, and evidence gets thrown out as a result now and then. But if the evidence wasnt thrown out, if it was allowed? If we took that route, the practical result would be that police would ignore and trample our rights with impunity anytime the whim struck them and there would be no practical motivation for them to behave lawfully at all.
Ok let's pretend when two sides are firing rockets at each other continuously for many years, that the much larger, richer and better armed side can be referred to as 'defending itself'.
I really dont have a problem with that. If I am walking down the street wearing a flack jacket and carrying a mossberg and you try to mug me with a knife that wouldnt make me the aggressor. But the reality of the case is much worse than that.
That's a reasonable rule of thumb with a big fudge factor, but there are more factors and it's difficult or impossible to predict in actuality. Even tax cuts that dont actually increase revenue may wind up decreasing it much less than expected. But, again, the government has plenty of revenue already. Many times more than is needed to carry out its legitimate functions. There is no need to find more revenue, only to cut spending.
I understand exactly what a design patent is, and I still think they are broken. Why should someone working on a new e-reader have to consult with lawyers and design around this thing? How does forcing them to do so, under penalty of possibly being sued into oblivion, promote progress in the useful arts and sciences? How?
Very few white kids are intolerant of milk. Even in China most kids drink milk.
"White" is a pretty meaningless word. Most people whose ancestors did not hail exclusively from a historical dairy region are at least somewhat lactose intolerant. That's the majority worldwide, it's a minority in the US but it's certainly not an insubstantial minority. It includes many kids that you would probably classify as 'white' visually.
This is absolutely true. Most vegetable proteins are incomplete, and none of them are in the proportions the body wants. The protein from meat, milk, and eggs, is far superior.
It isnt. A balanced protein from vegetable sources is in no way inferior to animal sources. It may require slightly more planning to achieve, but it isnt hard. Beans and grits or a masa based bread does it easily. And you dont have to make a complete protein in a single meal; it's fine to have the beans at one meal and the corn in a later one, as long as you are getting both regularly there is no problem.
Not a vegetarian, btw. Just know how to eat cheap when I need to.
Jobs and a balanced budget? Holy shit, that's some funny stuff. The straight Republican line has always been that the government can't create jobs.
Can't really create them (not on net at least) but it certainly can and does destroy them.
You do know that we're in this fucking mess because at the first sign of a surplus to pay off the debt, the Republicans put in a 10 year tax cut that wiped out every single dollar of surplus that would have retired the debt?
No, we're in this mess for a few reasons but that isnt actually one of them. Tax cuts often wind up increasing revenue rather that decreasing it for reasons anyone that has stayed half-awake through an intro to economics class should know. Regardless, we are spending more money on military alone than the military powers numbers two through eleven combined. On top of that we have a higher percentage of our population imprisoned than anyone else as well. And on top of that we are spending massive amounts on a welfare state that is not constitutionally sound as well. The problem isnt too little taxation, the problem is too much spending.
Fair enough, it was Bush Jr with an (R) after his name that really threw the warfare side of this thing into overdrive, I will give you that. But Ds have always been diehard welfare-staters, and mr hopey-changey sure as heck didnt do anything to reverse what he had done. Quite the opposite, he has dug in on every front and pushed harder.
They put up what was probably the most moderate Republican candidate since, hell, before I was born in a lousy economy that needed real business know-how...and he still lost by almost 3 million votes to a black man who's never run a company because they forced him to wear that super-conservative Republican platform around his neck like a God damned albatross.
Actually if by 'they' you mean the RNC, they put up a guy that was B Obama in whiteface, purged the conservative base from the party, and did pretty much everything they could do to make sure that the incumbent won. Pay closer attention, please.
I remember it much the same. Great company, but the product was always a bit of a beast, and when Slackware came out it was dead. We could migrate customers over to slackware for less than their licensing cost alone sticking with SCO, improve their stability and performance, and make a good profit on the deal. They never adjusted to the change in the market.
If defaults were sane then it wouldnt be as important, but they NEVER are. I care very little about eye-candy (though it's nice to at least be able to change it to something that isnt distracting) but behaviour (focus models, keyboard shortcuts, virtual desktops and accessible controls for the things I often use) is very important.
Setting aside arguments of validity, does it really seem like Microsoft is behaving very ethically by doing exactly what the claim requires and not licensing (or outright purchasing) the patent, while they were very much on notice of its existence?
Yes. As much as I dislike MS, in this case they are doing the right thing ethically, assuming they believe the patent invalid which would appear to be the case. Feeding patent trolls is unethical, it only strengthens them for the next target.
It would be very nice to see them come to their senses more broadly and use some of their massive capital and influence to fight against patents more generally, but that is a bit much to ask I suppose.
The thing is, dogs are eager to please. You dont even have to try to train them to alert whenever their handler is suspicious - they do that naturally. So the way this works is, the cop's 'gut' isnt sufficient to get a warrant, he needs some evidence not just a hunch. So he just gets the dog, who naturally picks up on the handlers state of mind and will alert as a result, neatly giving that initial hunch credibility and transforming it into 'evidence' which can justify a search.
It's a neat solution to those for whom the Constitution and the fundamentals of our legal system are 'problems' I suppose. Now the only question is whether the Supremes will give this workaround their stamp of approval immediately or send it back down the ranks for some tweaking.
Much as I hate to, I gotta go with Dawkins here. I have some experience with creationists and every single one I have known was completely ignorant of evolution. They *thought* they knew it, but all they knew was a straw man.
Now, in their defense, a lot of pro-evolution people dont understand it any better. The sad fact is that the educational system completely fails to teach science, and leaves pupils to choose sides based on faith.
Slashdot Mirror
For values of 'nice' that have absolutely no connection with reality, perhaps.
For me, any linux distro that runs steam is obviously broken. FFS can you please find half a clue?
The rest of it was almost credible, but Nero ffs? No way you are serious. You are rejecting linux because it doesnt run the crappiest package of binaries on the planet natively? Great, stick with windows, get what you deserve.
Those arent hunters, those are just what you call 'yobbos' down under. I lived there for an extended time myself, and if you try to BS me that your country isnt just as full of yobbos as mine is full of idiots I will just laugh at you.
Deliberately send your property flying over my property line like these guys are doing and it isnt a matter of two wrongs. Only one - yours. Invade my property and lose your invader - and be damn glad you dont lose a lot more.
I used to raise chickens too. Growing up on a farm with a good chicken population cured me of the desire to eat the things. They are trash. They eat whatever they can peck up. If you pour out grain they will eat it - along with everything else on the ground, including their own feces. If you neglect to feed them they will happily peck up that feces without any filler. 'Free range' chickens are a joke - they are just chickens left to their own devices, which means ~80% of their diet is feces instead of only ~20%. Chickens have a brain smaller than my thumb and if you were to predict their behaviour based on that you would overestimate their intelligence by several orders of magnitude. It is probably impossible to exaggerate just how dumb these things are - anything close to the truth would seem unbelievable to those that dont have experience keeping them.
Pigeons, by comparison, are bloody geniuses. And they are still only a little smarter than a grasshopper.
It flew across a road, got hit, and flew part of the way back after. That doesnt mean it was over the road when hit, and nothing I saw marked that road as public rather than private either.
These people are breaking no laws. And 'animal rights' is pure unadulterated bullshit.
I guess since I already accepted years ago that many of the newest and hottest games are not available to me (since I wont install STEAM or other DRM) I may not be the demographic this was aimed at. However I am a longtime gamer who has put unbelievable amounts of time and money into my games over the years. I love games, and if most of my games are old it's simply because most of the new ones require DRM that I am never going to install on my machine, period.
I am running windows because it is required for work, not because it is required for my games. I am not sure how many would run under WINE today but I bet a pretty good percentage - last time I had a dedicated linux machine I remember WINE handling a good percentage of my games. Unfortunately work is not so liberal. A large and critical portion of my required software load wont run without windows. Because of poor programming, absolutely, but I still need my paycheck.
And frankly, I wouldnt want Linux to take the sort of steps that would be necessary to change that situation from that end. I have to use windows because my job is support - supporting crappy software. Even if there werent specific required tools that would fail, I still need to eat the dogfood I am supporting to really do a good job supporting it. Changing it enough to make it usable for my work, or for my games, would just be making it into the same crap I want to get away from. Better to wait a few more paychecks till I can afford a second machine for my own use, then I will have the dogfood I need to eat in front of me, and a real useful system off to the side - and the ability to use the best parts of each to accomplish my tasks.
If you want a free windows clone support ReactOS, please dont make Linux into a windows clone instead. That would be the definition of tragedy.
Well, you could get in trouble for that, if you dont shoot them immediately...
It's clearly a lawful act, the legality may be questioned and I would recommend a lawyer on that count, should any of the actors face prosecution. There are bad laws on the book that one wouldnt want to be convicted under, since appeals consume time and money with no guarantee of justice. But the right to defend ones lawful property is the very heart and soul of law so a judgement, should one ever come, in favour if Mr Hindi and his gang of merry jackasses would be a judgement contrary to law and justice.
No, you are posting bullshit. Using the same measurements that were used to scare us prior to 1988, there has been no significant warming since. For years the IPCC cabal responded simply that x years is too few to be a trend. So-called 'scientist' Phil Jones insisted that 15 years just was too short to show a trend (for what it's worth that might be the first true words the man has ever spoken - my question is why did he not realise this back when he was claiming that 15 years of warming DID prove a whole lot?) Of course that dodge only worked for a few years, and since warming hasnt come back, they had to find some way to resurrect it. Simple, really, just change the measurements. No significant warming in air temp over land, but surely something has increased? There we go, certain measures of ocean temperatures *have* increased. So the air-temp readings that were the basis for the case 10 years ago are suddenly pushed aside in favour of a different source of information that conforms to the confirmation bias of the researchers involved. No surprise when you realise these are basically the same people that came up with the hockey-stick by merging several different data-sets, using one set for one year and a different one for the next to get the effect they were looking for while while making it appear to be a single consistent measurement.
I understand that most people can lie easily if they believe it is for a good cause, but scaring the human race back into the dark ages is not a good cause, and I shudder at the thought of trying to understand someone so messed up they think it is.
Lovelock is old now but he's a real scientist. He can admit when his theory is wrong and revise.
The key IPCC players were never real scientists. They hitched their boat to a hypothesis that was politically valuable and parlayed rich careers out of it, and they will never admit they were wrong.
You know what, I absolutely agree.
But what they are doing is still perfectly legal, and the idiots that are harassing them are even bigger idiots than they are. Flying a surveillance drone over private property, knowing that the owner is armed and does not consent, is dumb. Crying about it when they inevitably and properly blow your stupid drone out of the air is great though. It would serve Steve Hindi right if they shot him instead of his toy. Not that I would encourage anyone to do that - he isnt worth it. Self-righteous bastards like that come with a martyr complex - he would probably jump in front of the bullet if he was fast enough.
No one in this story came out looking good.
It's a mixed blessing for sure. Unfortunately it seems to be the best practical possibility. The idea with the 5th Amendment is to prohibit and thus prevent the Police from doing things they shouldnt do. Ideally, this could be seen as completely separate from the parallel task of convicting parties who have been caught and whose guilt is proven. This would mean that, if the police for example conducted an illegal search, and thereby found the evidence to put a murderer away, the murdere should be put away, the evidence should be used, but the policeman responsible would also be facing serious charges as well.
In practice, the courts figured out very early on that this simply is not practically possible. Police routinely put mutual protection (the "thin blue line" and "brotherhood" mentality) above their oath and above the law. Police almost never investigate other police. Police and prosecutors have to work very closely together and as a result prosecutors are *extremely* averse to investigating or charging policemen, no matter how clear their guilt. Judges are loath to cross police as well, even if less so, but Judges normally cannot do anything without the police investigating and the prosecutor filing charges anyway. So, in practice, police are above the law and cannot be held responsible for their crimes in any but the most unusual situation.
Acknowledging these facts, our courts fell back pretty quickly to a different position. If they cannot punish police who break the law directly then all they can do is remove the incentive that leads them to their criminal behaviour in the first place. Why do police perform illegal searches? To gain evidence, to secure convictions. So if you cannot directly punish them for doing this, what else can you do about it? Take away the incentive. If police know that any evidence they find will be excluded at trial anyway, they should no longer have any incentive to perform illegal searches. It's very sad when the result is a clearly guilty person walking away unpunished, but what is the alternative here? Even as-is, police still perform a steady stream of illegal searches, and evidence gets thrown out as a result now and then. But if the evidence wasnt thrown out, if it was allowed? If we took that route, the practical result would be that police would ignore and trample our rights with impunity anytime the whim struck them and there would be no practical motivation for them to behave lawfully at all.
Evolution is observed daily by anyone working on population genetics.
I really dont have a problem with that. If I am walking down the street wearing a flack jacket and carrying a mossberg and you try to mug me with a knife that wouldnt make me the aggressor. But the reality of the case is much worse than that.
That's a reasonable rule of thumb with a big fudge factor, but there are more factors and it's difficult or impossible to predict in actuality. Even tax cuts that dont actually increase revenue may wind up decreasing it much less than expected. But, again, the government has plenty of revenue already. Many times more than is needed to carry out its legitimate functions. There is no need to find more revenue, only to cut spending.
I understand exactly what a design patent is, and I still think they are broken. Why should someone working on a new e-reader have to consult with lawyers and design around this thing? How does forcing them to do so, under penalty of possibly being sued into oblivion, promote progress in the useful arts and sciences? How?
"White" is a pretty meaningless word. Most people whose ancestors did not hail exclusively from a historical dairy region are at least somewhat lactose intolerant. That's the majority worldwide, it's a minority in the US but it's certainly not an insubstantial minority. It includes many kids that you would probably classify as 'white' visually.
It isnt. A balanced protein from vegetable sources is in no way inferior to animal sources. It may require slightly more planning to achieve, but it isnt hard. Beans and grits or a masa based bread does it easily. And you dont have to make a complete protein in a single meal; it's fine to have the beans at one meal and the corn in a later one, as long as you are getting both regularly there is no problem.
Not a vegetarian, btw. Just know how to eat cheap when I need to.
Can't really create them (not on net at least) but it certainly can and does destroy them.
No, we're in this mess for a few reasons but that isnt actually one of them. Tax cuts often wind up increasing revenue rather that decreasing it for reasons anyone that has stayed half-awake through an intro to economics class should know. Regardless, we are spending more money on military alone than the military powers numbers two through eleven combined. On top of that we have a higher percentage of our population imprisoned than anyone else as well. And on top of that we are spending massive amounts on a welfare state that is not constitutionally sound as well. The problem isnt too little taxation, the problem is too much spending.
Fair enough, it was Bush Jr with an (R) after his name that really threw the warfare side of this thing into overdrive, I will give you that. But Ds have always been diehard welfare-staters, and mr hopey-changey sure as heck didnt do anything to reverse what he had done. Quite the opposite, he has dug in on every front and pushed harder.
Actually if by 'they' you mean the RNC, they put up a guy that was B Obama in whiteface, purged the conservative base from the party, and did pretty much everything they could do to make sure that the incumbent won. Pay closer attention, please.
I remember it much the same. Great company, but the product was always a bit of a beast, and when Slackware came out it was dead. We could migrate customers over to slackware for less than their licensing cost alone sticking with SCO, improve their stability and performance, and make a good profit on the deal. They never adjusted to the change in the market.
If defaults were sane then it wouldnt be as important, but they NEVER are. I care very little about eye-candy (though it's nice to at least be able to change it to something that isnt distracting) but behaviour (focus models, keyboard shortcuts, virtual desktops and accessible controls for the things I often use) is very important.
IANAL but as far as I know there are valid legal arguments for citing an invalid patent.
Yes. As much as I dislike MS, in this case they are doing the right thing ethically, assuming they believe the patent invalid which would appear to be the case. Feeding patent trolls is unethical, it only strengthens them for the next target.
It would be very nice to see them come to their senses more broadly and use some of their massive capital and influence to fight against patents more generally, but that is a bit much to ask I suppose.
The thing is, dogs are eager to please. You dont even have to try to train them to alert whenever their handler is suspicious - they do that naturally. So the way this works is, the cop's 'gut' isnt sufficient to get a warrant, he needs some evidence not just a hunch. So he just gets the dog, who naturally picks up on the handlers state of mind and will alert as a result, neatly giving that initial hunch credibility and transforming it into 'evidence' which can justify a search.
It's a neat solution to those for whom the Constitution and the fundamentals of our legal system are 'problems' I suppose. Now the only question is whether the Supremes will give this workaround their stamp of approval immediately or send it back down the ranks for some tweaking.
Much as I hate to, I gotta go with Dawkins here. I have some experience with creationists and every single one I have known was completely ignorant of evolution. They *thought* they knew it, but all they knew was a straw man.
Now, in their defense, a lot of pro-evolution people dont understand it any better. The sad fact is that the educational system completely fails to teach science, and leaves pupils to choose sides based on faith.