You can use that hardware, intel and amd cpus? Fully supported. Nvidia and ATI video? Open source drivers dont provide all the functions of the proprietary ones, devaluing the hardware somewhat, but they work and there is no longer any issue of kernel upgrades breaking things as long as you use them. Used most of the other hardware you mention without problem with linux too. Requiring an unchanging ABI would have prevented much of the refinement that has gone on in the linux ABI since 1993, and done absolutely nothing to improve free software, so Linus definitely has made the right call on this one.
Ubuntu wouldnt be my choice though. Just saying. If you dont want bloatware I would try to avoid Gnome-centric distros. Slackware might require you to read in order to configure it, but it's worth it.
No, I really am not exagerrating. We were using these techniques in the freaking '80s. An antivirus running on an infected system is only going to be able to remove malware written by total idiots. Which is most of it, but definitely not all.
I understand that the javascript differences could conceivably become very annoying. And I understand that it can be useful, though it's overused. (Which is why my policy is white-list only.) But why talk about markup and stylesheets? You ran the three things together in a simple list as if they were all the same.
This is hardly the first or the last to use such tricks. This is why I cannot place any faith in any antivirus being used in the typical configuration - as part of a running Windows system. That just doesnt work.
Way back In the day you had to load your scanner on a boot floppy. These days a linux boot cd is the replacement. A bit bloated, but at least it does the job.
Markup and stylesheets are layout. The post you were replying to was pointing out that HTML is a semantic language and there is not, never was, and is not supposed to be any guarantee that they will handle layout in the same way. So you seem to be missing his point.
That one is particularly annoying, as it has been around for a very long time and well established, and now we have all these technical illiterates that would never be able to configure a router running around gushing about ios. WTF?
I imagine, given my experience with others who have said a similar thing, that you have some notion of arbitrary right to ownership and/or disposal of *stuff*, and you're assuming that these notions must apply to any definition of property.
To use a quote I like that happens to be perfectly appropriate here, that isnt even close enough to be wrong.
The concept of "property" doesnt have meaning in isolation. It is part and parcel of a tradition of rational analysis of the human condition, with particular focus on the implications of that analysis for ethics, morality, and law, which is usually known as 'natural rights'. Placed correctly in its context, it is an elegant, powerful, and practical idea. Torn from that context and misappropriated, it becomes nothing more than a noise.
You cannot "limit the damage to your attacker" with a gun: if you shoot someone with a gun then you should be prepared for them to die.
I most certainly can limit my damage to my attacker with a firearm. I can shoot one attacker down without hitting the bystanders standing just right and left of him. It's the good type of 'gun control' - being able to hit your target.
By contrast a bomb that explodes with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT (a very low-end fission bomb,) even without considering the radiation involved, would destroy not only the attacker AND the two innocent bystanders, but every other innocent bystander in a rather large radius, as well as myself. It's a horrible weapon, completely useless for defense, a weapon of mass-terror, of mass-murder.
If the mere construction were a massive tort as you describe then it would be unreasonable for the government to build a working atomic bomb near you too.
Yes, I agree completely. No one should build nuclear weapons, under current circumstances. Governments are no exception. Why should they be? If anything the opposite is true. If I cant trust my neighbor with a nuke I certainly cant trust any government with one.
Oh, I interpret the gun you're carrying as a direct threat to me every time you're within shooting distance of me in the street. I interpret the knife you're eating your food with opposite me as very threatening, too. And those nasty words I heard you say a couple of days ago - you didn't actually indicate any intention to do harm, but they sure sounded subversive. If we're using potential intention as a reason to tweak a notion of property, every restriction is on the cards. Woohoo!
Sheer sophistry. Is it fun to diss randroids then make a point of adopting their most irrational and annoying quirks? There is no possible set of rules that a clever juvenile cannot destroy with such tactics, at least in their own minds. In the real world, adults are expected to distinguish between real threats and unreasonable fears constantly, and we usually manage to muddle through well enough.
"Rights are powerful observations" simply makes no sense.
It makes no sense to you because you dont understand it. I suspect you dont want to understand it either, and if that is true then you never will. Humans are funny that way.
On the off chance I am wrong about that though, a brief explanation by analogy. Consider the sentence "gravity is a powerful and useful observation." Does that make any more sense to you? Of course gravity can have several distinct but related meanings, and we use context to sort them out. Gravity can refer to the observable fact that things fall down, the most abstract of theories as to *why* things fall down, and quite a few distinguishable layers in between. So here what I am saying is that gravity is a fact, and when we observe how it works (even at a fairly crude level) this gives us a powerful tool to predict things before they happen, to be able to know that X will work but Y will fail horribly, without having to follow
The Marxist usage of "property" is only self-contradictory if you assume certain attributes of property which Marx does not.
Specifically?
If you happened to own land with the appropriate natural resources to build a working atomic bomb, should the law permit you to?
This is another typical tactic of those who dislike reason, attempting to break the paradigm by appeal to an edge case. The same tactic is used, for instance, by "creationists" attempting to discredit biological science. In both cases the tactic only works when the audience is ignorant.
Of course, if you take an extremely basic and naÃve view of rights, constructing such a bomb would seem to be legitimite, but no matter how naÃve and simplistic your reasoning, using it would not be, at least under any realistic circumstances. It's a weapon which cannot even be used in legitimite self-defense, because you cannot limit the damage to your attacker, but would inevitably murder many innocents in the process.
Given this, the construction of such a device would in fact constitute a massive tort against everyone in range to be affected. When you consider fallout that class could expand to include everyone on earth, but at the very least this would obviously include all neighbors within blast range. Furthermore it could easily and reasonably be interpreted as a direct threat to that entire group of people, which only strengthens the obvious conclusion - this act is not within your rights, under any set of conditions currently likely.
We can, however, imagine possible future circumstances where it would be. A man who lived alone in an otherwise uninhabited star system, for instance. For now, at least, such circumstances are science fiction, but they are hardly unimaginable.
There is no contradiction here at all. If you imagine one it is only because your own view of natural rights contains errors. Rights are not floating abstractions, they are practical, powerful observations based on the nature of our own existence as human beings existing in the universe we exist in.
I know you dont realise it but you are really just expanding on the point I made. Yes, there is a marxist usage that is common, but it is a fallacious usage designed to destroy the very concept by making it self-contradictory.
This is where all the twisting and warping of the notion of "rights" has lead us. I am not trying to criticise you personally, your post shows a person who thinks things through and has a good head on his shoulder. But you clearly, like many today, dont understand what a right is and is not.
You say you have a right to eat, but no right to eat someone elses food. But the fact that eating requires food (something produced by labour) means there cannot be a right to eat per se, nor a right to housing, to health care, etc The right to ones own property (the fruits of ones own labour) is a real right - you can have and enforce that right without violating anyone elses rights. But how can you have a right to eat if you dont make food? Only by enslaving someone who does, or stealing their property, which is hardly respecting other peoples rights.
However, if you produce something of value, and trade it to someone who needs it, for their food, then everyones rights are respected and everyone involved is made richer. The right to your own property, and the right to engage in commerce freely, are all that is involved. No "right to eat" needed.
Slashcode is utterly abominable. Every revision, they not only make the place uglier, they introduce new bugs as well. The last redesign appears to have totally borked utf input.
âoeWhat I saw in the Xerox PARC technology was the caveman interface, you point and you grunt. A massive winding down, regressing away from language, in order to address the technological nervousness of the userâ.
Having an OS with a shell like this could certainly save time in teaching new users to use the platform, as well as saving a lot of programmer time on porting over the years. A local web server is a very inefficient way to provide apps in a sense, but then so are all GUIs and that doesnt seem to limit their popularity in any meaningful way. And if you run all your apps through that, you can keep a fairly small, modular operating system codebase that isnt a nightmare to maintain, update, and port using relatively frugal resources. .
Actually, attorneys for the government DO start around there, with some variation depending on the local cost of living index.
Teachers are horribly undervalued as well, no doubt about it. I was thinking of them when I wrote that it was easy to think of other undervalued professions. That doesnt mean that compulsory unions like the NEA dont add their own pound of poison to that particular mix as well of course. I think that governor may well be playing nothing but power politics himself, but some of his support has to come from people who are righteously pissed at the teachers union and just want to destroy it by any means necessary.
Getting leaders in government who wont play games, as hard as that is, would still only be a temporary fix. Bad ones will inevitably come at some point in the future, so the better long-term solution is a real separation of school and state.
When the Egyptian Army was ordered to turn their guns on their own people, they refused and the regime crumbled.
Do you really think the US military man is so inferior to the Egyptian?
Frankly I suspect one of the reasons our rulers are so eager to send them off to fight and die in senseless wars on the other side of the world is because they know better than that.
I was using the word accurately and correctly. The substitution of submission to authority for actual rule of law is one of the hallmarks of fascism. (Government control via regulation of private business, rather than direct control, is another. We have more than enough of both in the USA today, thanks.)
The US average for a patrolman is under $50k. Entry level attorneys make $80k+.
Of course it is all relative, and I am sure you can think of another profession which is even more underpaid, I certainly can. But a patrolman needs to know the law, and also needs a lot of physical skills and knowledge the lawyer doesnt need. He works harder, longer, and in a much more dangerous setting.
Simply raising the pay wont solve the problems, of course. You would just have the same thugs with bigger budgets. But combine higher pay (attracting more and better qualified applicants) with some serious law enforcement efforts to take down the thugs and replace them with people that will obey their oath, and you might start to see some progress.
Money doesnt solve the problem, no, I dont think I even implied that.
Money is part of the equation though.
The average salary for a patrol office is under $50k. Entry level attorneys routinely start at $80k+. The attorney spends more time in school (but if we really want good cops on the streets we need people with more education than we are getting,) but the cop has a much tougher job, he needs to have the smarts and knowledge of the lawyer combined with physical skills, and he deals with more danger on top of it.
My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.
Reliable statistics would obviously be very difficult to generate, if you can find anything approximating such I would love to see it.
But just to be clear, I am not in any way implying that 95% of cops in this country are actively corrupt as in going out shooting people just because they can or the like. What I *am* saying seems to be true, is that 95% of cops WILL comply with the 'blue line' nonsense and refuse to do their duty and/or actively obstruct justice to defend the bad cops. I have seen how this is deeply encultured in our law enforcement officers, and even though I can understand and even sympathise with those officers, the fact is that it is THOSE officers - not the handful of hard-core bad apples, but the masses of 'thin blue line' believers who may do little or nothing wrong otherwise, that make the problem so intractible.
Think about the story behind this article. From reading both the links, it seems that it was mainly a single policeman who was the active culprit here, committing a number of crimes under color of law (assault, battery, destruction of property, evidence-tampering, just at a glance) and it might be tempting to jump out and claim he is just one bad apple and it doesnt reflect on the rest of the force. But there were a large number of police on the scene to witness his crime!
It was the large number who stood by and did nothing effective to stop the 'bad apple' - who in a true law and order state would have placed HIM under arrest on the spot, but who, in our world, will instead look the other way and claim afterwards not to have seen the incident - without those supposedly good cops to enable him, the bad cop wouldnt last long at all. That was what I was trying to point out.
Here in the US we fought a very bloody and painful war which all the oddsmakers gave us absolutely 0 chance of winning to gain our independence, and one of the major reasons we did that was because of warrantless searches. We have a fourth amendment for a reason. If a law is impossible to enforce without warrantless searches (laws attempting to regulate peaceful private behaviour generally are) then it's a bad law and it shouldnt be enforced anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You can use that hardware, intel and amd cpus? Fully supported. Nvidia and ATI video? Open source drivers dont provide all the functions of the proprietary ones, devaluing the hardware somewhat, but they work and there is no longer any issue of kernel upgrades breaking things as long as you use them. Used most of the other hardware you mention without problem with linux too. Requiring an unchanging ABI would have prevented much of the refinement that has gone on in the linux ABI since 1993, and done absolutely nothing to improve free software, so Linus definitely has made the right call on this one.
Ubuntu wouldnt be my choice though. Just saying. If you dont want bloatware I would try to avoid Gnome-centric distros. Slackware might require you to read in order to configure it, but it's worth it.
No, I really am not exagerrating. We were using these techniques in the freaking '80s. An antivirus running on an infected system is only going to be able to remove malware written by total idiots. Which is most of it, but definitely not all.
I understand that the javascript differences could conceivably become very annoying. And I understand that it can be useful, though it's overused. (Which is why my policy is white-list only.) But why talk about markup and stylesheets? You ran the three things together in a simple list as if they were all the same.
This is hardly the first or the last to use such tricks. This is why I cannot place any faith in any antivirus being used in the typical configuration - as part of a running Windows system. That just doesnt work.
Way back In the day you had to load your scanner on a boot floppy. These days a linux boot cd is the replacement. A bit bloated, but at least it does the job.
I dont think I have even seen a router with a mouse plugged in.
Well that's rather pointless.
How did this work?
Last I checked I thought adblock and noscript were both 'impossible' to implement on chrome because the underlying infrastructure didnt allow for it.
Markup and stylesheets are layout. The post you were replying to was pointing out that HTML is a semantic language and there is not, never was, and is not supposed to be any guarantee that they will handle layout in the same way. So you seem to be missing his point.
Did Apple pay them off separately for ios?
That one is particularly annoying, as it has been around for a very long time and well established, and now we have all these technical illiterates that would never be able to configure a router running around gushing about ios. WTF?
To use a quote I like that happens to be perfectly appropriate here, that isnt even close enough to be wrong.
The concept of "property" doesnt have meaning in isolation. It is part and parcel of a tradition of rational analysis of the human condition, with particular focus on the implications of that analysis for ethics, morality, and law, which is usually known as 'natural rights'. Placed correctly in its context, it is an elegant, powerful, and practical idea. Torn from that context and misappropriated, it becomes nothing more than a noise.
I most certainly can limit my damage to my attacker with a firearm. I can shoot one attacker down without hitting the bystanders standing just right and left of him. It's the good type of 'gun control' - being able to hit your target.
By contrast a bomb that explodes with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT (a very low-end fission bomb,) even without considering the radiation involved, would destroy not only the attacker AND the two innocent bystanders, but every other innocent bystander in a rather large radius, as well as myself. It's a horrible weapon, completely useless for defense, a weapon of mass-terror, of mass-murder.
Yes, I agree completely. No one should build nuclear weapons, under current circumstances. Governments are no exception. Why should they be? If anything the opposite is true. If I cant trust my neighbor with a nuke I certainly cant trust any government with one.
Sheer sophistry. Is it fun to diss randroids then make a point of adopting their most irrational and annoying quirks? There is no possible set of rules that a clever juvenile cannot destroy with such tactics, at least in their own minds. In the real world, adults are expected to distinguish between real threats and unreasonable fears constantly, and we usually manage to muddle through well enough.
It makes no sense to you because you dont understand it. I suspect you dont want to understand it either, and if that is true then you never will. Humans are funny that way.
On the off chance I am wrong about that though, a brief explanation by analogy. Consider the sentence "gravity is a powerful and useful observation." Does that make any more sense to you? Of course gravity can have several distinct but related meanings, and we use context to sort them out. Gravity can refer to the observable fact that things fall down, the most abstract of theories as to *why* things fall down, and quite a few distinguishable layers in between. So here what I am saying is that gravity is a fact, and when we observe how it works (even at a fairly crude level) this gives us a powerful tool to predict things before they happen, to be able to know that X will work but Y will fail horribly, without having to follow
Specifically?
This is another typical tactic of those who dislike reason, attempting to break the paradigm by appeal to an edge case. The same tactic is used, for instance, by "creationists" attempting to discredit biological science. In both cases the tactic only works when the audience is ignorant.
Of course, if you take an extremely basic and naÃve view of rights, constructing such a bomb would seem to be legitimite, but no matter how naÃve and simplistic your reasoning, using it would not be, at least under any realistic circumstances. It's a weapon which cannot even be used in legitimite self-defense, because you cannot limit the damage to your attacker, but would inevitably murder many innocents in the process.
Given this, the construction of such a device would in fact constitute a massive tort against everyone in range to be affected. When you consider fallout that class could expand to include everyone on earth, but at the very least this would obviously include all neighbors within blast range. Furthermore it could easily and reasonably be interpreted as a direct threat to that entire group of people, which only strengthens the obvious conclusion - this act is not within your rights, under any set of conditions currently likely.
We can, however, imagine possible future circumstances where it would be. A man who lived alone in an otherwise uninhabited star system, for instance. For now, at least, such circumstances are science fiction, but they are hardly unimaginable.
There is no contradiction here at all. If you imagine one it is only because your own view of natural rights contains errors. Rights are not floating abstractions, they are practical, powerful observations based on the nature of our own existence as human beings existing in the universe we exist in.
I know you dont realise it but you are really just expanding on the point I made. Yes, there is a marxist usage that is common, but it is a fallacious usage designed to destroy the very concept by making it self-contradictory.
This is where all the twisting and warping of the notion of "rights" has lead us. I am not trying to criticise you personally, your post shows a person who thinks things through and has a good head on his shoulder. But you clearly, like many today, dont understand what a right is and is not.
You say you have a right to eat, but no right to eat someone elses food. But the fact that eating requires food (something produced by labour) means there cannot be a right to eat per se, nor a right to housing, to health care, etc The right to ones own property (the fruits of ones own labour) is a real right - you can have and enforce that right without violating anyone elses rights. But how can you have a right to eat if you dont make food? Only by enslaving someone who does, or stealing their property, which is hardly respecting other peoples rights.
However, if you produce something of value, and trade it to someone who needs it, for their food, then everyones rights are respected and everyone involved is made richer. The right to your own property, and the right to engage in commerce freely, are all that is involved. No "right to eat" needed.
Slashcode is utterly abominable. Every revision, they not only make the place uglier, they introduce new bugs as well. The last redesign appears to have totally borked utf input.
âoeWhat I saw in the Xerox PARC technology was the caveman interface, you point and you grunt. A massive winding down, regressing away from language, in order to address the technological nervousness of the userâ.
In addition to the indication of word order, there is also obviously a reason that the phrase "or domestic" was included.
Having an OS with a shell like this could certainly save time in teaching new users to use the platform, as well as saving a lot of programmer time on porting over the years. A local web server is a very inefficient way to provide apps in a sense, but then so are all GUIs and that doesnt seem to limit their popularity in any meaningful way. And if you run all your apps through that, you can keep a fairly small, modular operating system codebase that isnt a nightmare to maintain, update, and port using relatively frugal resources. .
Actually, attorneys for the government DO start around there, with some variation depending on the local cost of living index.
Teachers are horribly undervalued as well, no doubt about it. I was thinking of them when I wrote that it was easy to think of other undervalued professions. That doesnt mean that compulsory unions like the NEA dont add their own pound of poison to that particular mix as well of course. I think that governor may well be playing nothing but power politics himself, but some of his support has to come from people who are righteously pissed at the teachers union and just want to destroy it by any means necessary.
Getting leaders in government who wont play games, as hard as that is, would still only be a temporary fix. Bad ones will inevitably come at some point in the future, so the better long-term solution is a real separation of school and state.
When the Egyptian Army was ordered to turn their guns on their own people, they refused and the regime crumbled.
Do you really think the US military man is so inferior to the Egyptian?
Frankly I suspect one of the reasons our rulers are so eager to send them off to fight and die in senseless wars on the other side of the world is because they know better than that.
I was using the word accurately and correctly. The substitution of submission to authority for actual rule of law is one of the hallmarks of fascism. (Government control via regulation of private business, rather than direct control, is another. We have more than enough of both in the USA today, thanks.)
The US average for a patrolman is under $50k. Entry level attorneys make $80k+.
Of course it is all relative, and I am sure you can think of another profession which is even more underpaid, I certainly can. But a patrolman needs to know the law, and also needs a lot of physical skills and knowledge the lawyer doesnt need. He works harder, longer, and in a much more dangerous setting.
Simply raising the pay wont solve the problems, of course. You would just have the same thugs with bigger budgets. But combine higher pay (attracting more and better qualified applicants) with some serious law enforcement efforts to take down the thugs and replace them with people that will obey their oath, and you might start to see some progress.
Money doesnt solve the problem, no, I dont think I even implied that.
Money is part of the equation though.
The average salary for a patrol office is under $50k. Entry level attorneys routinely start at $80k+. The attorney spends more time in school (but if we really want good cops on the streets we need people with more education than we are getting,) but the cop has a much tougher job, he needs to have the smarts and knowledge of the lawyer combined with physical skills, and he deals with more danger on top of it.
My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.
Yes, he probably stands out in some way. Skin colour, or wardrobe, or whatever.
Doesnt mean he is in any less human, or his rights are any less precious.
Reliable statistics would obviously be very difficult to generate, if you can find anything approximating such I would love to see it.
But just to be clear, I am not in any way implying that 95% of cops in this country are actively corrupt as in going out shooting people just because they can or the like. What I *am* saying seems to be true, is that 95% of cops WILL comply with the 'blue line' nonsense and refuse to do their duty and/or actively obstruct justice to defend the bad cops. I have seen how this is deeply encultured in our law enforcement officers, and even though I can understand and even sympathise with those officers, the fact is that it is THOSE officers - not the handful of hard-core bad apples, but the masses of 'thin blue line' believers who may do little or nothing wrong otherwise, that make the problem so intractible.
Think about the story behind this article. From reading both the links, it seems that it was mainly a single policeman who was the active culprit here, committing a number of crimes under color of law (assault, battery, destruction of property, evidence-tampering, just at a glance) and it might be tempting to jump out and claim he is just one bad apple and it doesnt reflect on the rest of the force. But there were a large number of police on the scene to witness his crime!
It was the large number who stood by and did nothing effective to stop the 'bad apple' - who in a true law and order state would have placed HIM under arrest on the spot, but who, in our world, will instead look the other way and claim afterwards not to have seen the incident - without those supposedly good cops to enable him, the bad cop wouldnt last long at all. That was what I was trying to point out.
Here in the US we fought a very bloody and painful war which all the oddsmakers gave us absolutely 0 chance of winning to gain our independence, and one of the major reasons we did that was because of warrantless searches. We have a fourth amendment for a reason. If a law is impossible to enforce without warrantless searches (laws attempting to regulate peaceful private behaviour generally are) then it's a bad law and it shouldnt be enforced anyway.