I would have turned the argument around, especially since Republicans actually believe that a foetus is a person.
That's why I said "The other party is just as inconsistent".
Democrats are not incosistent in this regard because they do not consider a foetus to be a person.
Actually most states have laws against killing foetuses, including states controlled by Dems. In that case, whether it is alive or not depends on whether the mother wanted it or not. That doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Anyhow, I don't really care as I am independent.
I'm a registered Libertarian.
Not in Texas. If you go on to someone's property he or she can shoot you.
True, but Texas is special in a lot of ways, and that's one of the laws that would make me not want to live there. Take my argument as "everywhere in the US except Texas".
It always surprises me that the party that is supposed to advocate freedom always wants to know and censure what other people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Unless of course it is killing someone with the handgun they keep in their closet. That's perfectly fine.
It always suprises me that the party that opposes the death penalty and euthanasia supports abortion. (1) The state cannot decide that you die. Sounds good. (2) Your mother can decide if you die, but you cannot. Erm? The other party is just as inconsistent. At least minor parties have to courage to come up with self-consistent platforms rather than amalgamations of checkbox issues to pick up votes.
Anyway last I checked, killing someone with a gun is illegal, unless it was in self defense. Would you like it if the US used the WTO to push our gun ownership laws? I think not, so maybe they should not push their gambling views.
Some background info for the uninitiated: Note that Islam stipulates that gambling is illegal, rather like Jewish Kosher values stipulate things such as that pork cannot be eaten. So yes, they'd be pretty pissed to be told that they have to allow gambling.
Here's an example: The position of Islam on gambling is that it is prohibited, harmful and destructive to society. Gambling is addictive by nature, a practice that takes money from the poor with the perceived, yet illusive promise that they may "win" something without having to work for it. Gambling is mentioned in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, alongside drinking alcohol as an abomination, a sin, and a grave harm to mankind.
I think this issue is an example of trade getting dangerously close to values; For example what if the WTO told us we need to lower the age for legal pornagraphy to 17, to bring it in line with some European nations? I hope the WTO forces France to allow religious symbols in school again, since their new law forbidding it will ruin the religeous headscarf, skullcap, and large cross market. No, that would be terrible, because mixing trade and values is silly.
In the US, gambling has always been heavily regulated (my views aside, it seems to be the will of the people), and they want to keep it that way. Online gambling, just like the online pharmacies pimping everything nowadays, are extremely hard to regulate.
So in short, this is not a good example of the US being arrogant, and they really do have a point regarding laws and tradition.
After RTFA I guess I don't really disagree with the ruling. I'm just glad I live in a state that hasn't passed a law forbidding local telocoms; It's nice when state governments give communities the same benefit of the doubt as the Fed when it comes to regulation. Though I do wonder how many of those state laws are consistent with state constitutions, but that's another issue entirely.
I think the problem lies in the fact that state governments are even more beholden to big lobbying groups than the Federal gov't. I'm glad I live in a state that doesn't suck. When the moneybags start flowing, that will probably change however.
And you should check your history. It started as a public entity and then was privatized only recently (1990s). Which is exactly what this comment suggested doing with telecom. The USPS privatization was done in the best interest of consumers, to spur competition where there was none before, not because it was thought to be illegal for the government to do such a thing. Why shouldn't a town be able to take the opposite action, starting a local telecom, to spur competition where there was none before?
The libertarian ideal that government should be owning pretty much anything has nothing to do with the republicrats, either...
There's a pretty big split in the party between small-government libertarian-esque people and "big-government conservatives" who like large governments that push conservative values. As you say however, it's pretty obvious which is in control of the Republican party and the white house right now. I for one am not looking forward to the choice of big-government or big-government in the next election.
Of course, how can I espouse libertarian ideals, yet defend a local telecom? Well, a truly libertarian _federal_ government would *not* push its own values on states so much. It would pretty much stay our of affairs that do not violate law. In other words, if a community wanted to become practically socialist, I think that's up to the local people to decide and not for the state to dictate.
But when it's click windows update, somehow it's some monumental task thats just the worst thing imaginable.
Well, Windows Update pretty much always insists on rebooting the machine, which is irritating to some users (i.e. power users). On *nix this only needs to be done for (fairly rare) kernel exploits and not simple library/program updates.
The mini is quite a bit smaller than its older sibling. Rather than being like a small tape player, it is practically the size of a cell phone. Thus, a lot of people buying it are ones who wanted more portability than previous models afforded. I'm going to buy a MuVo2 as soon as they are in stock again; I expect the small HD mp3 players to dominate the market eventually.
You're supposed to use/dev/input/mice now, while/dev/psaux is depricated. Point XFree to it in your/etc/X11/XFree86Config-4 file and you're done. See the Linux 2.6 Input Drivers FAQ for common inout problems with solutions.
With as much cash as they have in reserve, I don't think MS will disappear in my lifetime. They could become a radically different company compared to what they are today, however. Look at how IBM has changed from 20 years ago, when *they* were the desktop monopoly. Of course, as Linus said, "I'll know we've won when they release MS Office for Linux".
I don't think its really getting worse for MS right now; Compared to a few years ago, I think their products have been getting better, spurred on by competition. What they won't have in the future are the fat margins of the "early winner" that they've enjoyed up to now. Those never last forever in *any* industry.
Wrong time frame I think; I first started hearing rumors about it being integrated in the NT 5 timeframe in 1998 while I worked there as an intern (NT 5 later was rebranded Win2k). The rumors came from *outside* the company when people noticed substantial changes in how the betas handled networking. What is sure is that TCP/IP mostly got rewritten, and that it has some curiously non-IPV4 compliant corner case behavior that happened to be identical to the BSD stack. More power to them if they found something better and ported it and hacked on it from there.
MS isn't afraid to tear-out and replace modules, or even to try some competing approaches for a while (usually an experimental new version alongside the existing one being slowly extended). That is, until one of them gets a bad BillG review, of course. The project I was working on in NT-imaging seems to have been canned, which is too bad; That time the experiment lost. The only user-visible evidence in Windows that it ever existed is a control panel icon a coworker of mine made.
It depends on the kind of game. Carmack's games are like the 1990's "special effects" movies, which were driven more by technical achievements than a good plot. As time goes on, it gets much harder- either you have to come up with increasingly complex technical achievements (like Doom3 or HL2), or combine reasonably complex technical systems with a good plot and gameplay, which are hard to develop, integrate, and polish on tight schedules. Games really are following in the footsteps of movies. Here's also to hoping that independent games will still exist like independent movies...
So you've proved I make mistakes when I write in a hurry, while conveniently ignoring facts. Now that I've had some sleep, let's play the anal-retentive grammar game. We'll start with your grandparent post:
so what does that prove, that people cant marry whoever they want?
Incorrect capitalization, "cant" is not a word, it's spelled "can't". (1)
just because you endorse some kind of caste system where only the wealthy can marry each other doesnt mean thats how things are done in this country.
Again this is missing proper capitalization, and "doesnt" isn't a word; It should be spelled "doesn't".
if you dislike that, go to the middle east or india- they wont let people marry outside their 'station'
The sentence is missing capitalization, and "middle east" is a proper noun and should also be capitalized, as well as "india".
Now, we can move on to your current post:
If anything, I would say Im one of the biggest proponents of free enterprise than the majority of people on this website.
First, "Im" should be "I'm", but at least you are now capitalizing sentences. Second, it is grammatically incorrect to say "one of the biggest" followed by "than"; You can't express both group membership and comparison at the same time. You probably meant to say "I would say I'm a bigger proponent of free enterprise than the majority of people on this website." or alternatively "I would say I'm one of the biggest proponents of free enterprise on this website." Briefly addressing content, this says very little because half the people on Slashdot are Socialists but don't realize they are. Well, some are Europeans who do know, so kudos to them.
No, I figure Cheney only serves the rich because he is a member of the Old Boy Network, just like Bush.
Just like Kerry's wife, and his buddy Edward Kennedy. Notice that Edwards' name doesn't come in here. In fact I notice that you never even once brought up Edwards. Do you even know anything about him, or are you just a fan-boy of the current front runner? I wonder if you supported Dean before. I don't want to vote for Bush, so I don't think its wrong want the Democrats to come up with a better choice than someone who's been inside the beltway since 1969.
If you want to spew half baked ideas, you will have to do it against someone far less certain on the basis of their political ethics than myself.
Of course that isn't clear, as the only thing you've contributed to this whole discussion so far is saying roughly "I imagine that there is a prenuptial agreement" (Notice I can spell prenuptial correctly, which you spelled as "prenupual"). The rest has been trying to defend views you don't bother to elaborate. Although, it seems that you like Kerry, and clearly don't want anyone to spoil your idealistic image of him. You also seem believe (albeit incorrectly) I am a Republican. Going back to grammar, several style guides consider the use of "myself" where "me" is appropriate to be incorrect. By sheer force of use however, it has become accepted. You seem to be trying to do the same with dropping capitalization and the apostrophe. Are you a fan of e. e. cummings or something?
Health care isnt going to get 'fixed'
Hence my use of the word "want". If you instead ask me to predict what would happen, I'd say that Edwards' plans if given a chance would improve things, while Kerry's would make things worse. Of course, we can argue about whether Bush's "big government plan" is even worse than Kerry's, but I'd rather try for one that has a chance of actually helping. Call me an idealist.
There is way too much money being thrown at Congress for things to ever change.
And leading them all in the U.S. Congress is John Kerry. Of course you'll just point out that G. W. Bush is earning a l
Yeah, it looks like they think they are the first to support the idea of having different backgrounds on each virtual desktop. I was doing that 8 years ago in X with CTWM... sigh. Enlightenment also does pretty much everything they describe except the animation, and the animation sure sounds a lot like OSX's Expose'. Nothing like being able to put 2 and 2 together and patent the number 4.
Oh sorry I misread the question somewhat (GPL!=LGPL). The LGPL gets really flakey when you talk about C++ objects. The act of linking includes code for inline functions, which ends up in their binary, not dynamically linked (oops). Templates are even worse. So depending on how I expect it to be used and what I'm going to tolerate, I carefully choose between the licenses to best approximate what I want. The FLTK toolkit does this another way, for example, by clarifying their interpretatation of the LGPL, explicitly allowing static linking. I have no idea whether that legally holds any water however, so I don't use that approach.
I use it when above everything else I just want easy compatibility. errno.h would be a great example. Of course I didn't write that, but in some of my subprojects I have headers of definitions that I'd rather anyone can use. That way I can minimize glue between my system and theirs, mapping between essentially identical structures or identifiers. Hopefully that made sense:)
Two examples are a vector library (2d,3d vector operations) and a numerical utility library (filling in some of the simple gaps in math.h and STL's algorithm.h). I've never used a BSD-style licence on any significant code modules however, and don't plan on doing so any time soon.
If you "fuck all" your users, you will get no reward.
If you use a BSD license, you won't get any reward either. However, the "fuck all" approach seems to have worked ok for Theo so far. We'll see how Linus becomes in his old age.
If I'm giving away my code, what's wrong with expecting the same thing in return? Is it that you don't like the GPL, or that you wanted to use something released as GPL but were unwilling to share? You've lost nothing if I don't release my code. Thus, giving away my code with restrictions doesn't take away anything from anyone. It's not like people who use the GPL haven't heard of BSD style licenses.
Having released significant projects under the GPL, the only problems we've ever had are companies complaining they couldn't steal our code without negotiating another license (duh), and people who wanted us to adopt a license that included an advertising clause for their university (um, no thanks).
I usually use BSD on definitions and small libraries. That's because BSD is an excellent license if all you want is compatibility and don't care about building community. If you want to understand community, look at the relative size and "forkiness" of Linux vs. BSD development communities.
But do they offer indemnity? I was told I should demand it whenever I get a contract to use software, and I have a nagging feeling they might have included some other people's works.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have turned the argument around, especially since Republicans actually believe that a foetus is a person.
That's why I said "The other party is just as inconsistent".
Democrats are not incosistent in this regard because they do not consider a foetus to be a person.
Actually most states have laws against killing foetuses, including states controlled by Dems. In that case, whether it is alive or not depends on whether the mother wanted it or not. That doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Anyhow, I don't really care as I am independent.
I'm a registered Libertarian.
Not in Texas. If you go on to someone's property he or she can shoot you.
True, but Texas is special in a lot of ways, and that's one of the laws that would make me not want to live there. Take my argument as "everywhere in the US except Texas".
Well, it did happen a long time ago...
(just like Abortion being legal and murder being illegal has nothing to do with each other)
Of course not, but that's a trade issue for the WTO to decide.
It always surprises me that the party that is supposed to advocate freedom always wants to know and censure what other people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Unless of course it is killing someone with the handgun they keep in their closet. That's perfectly fine.
It always suprises me that the party that opposes the death penalty and euthanasia supports abortion. (1) The state cannot decide that you die. Sounds good. (2) Your mother can decide if you die, but you cannot. Erm? The other party is just as inconsistent. At least minor parties have to courage to come up with self-consistent platforms rather than amalgamations of checkbox issues to pick up votes.
Anyway last I checked, killing someone with a gun is illegal, unless it was in self defense. Would you like it if the US used the WTO to push our gun ownership laws? I think not, so maybe they should not push their gambling views.
Some background info for the uninitiated: Note that Islam stipulates that gambling is illegal, rather like Jewish Kosher values stipulate things such as that pork cannot be eaten. So yes, they'd be pretty pissed to be told that they have to allow gambling.
Here's an example:
The position of Islam on gambling is that it is prohibited, harmful and destructive to society. Gambling is addictive by nature, a practice that takes money from the poor with the perceived, yet illusive promise that they may "win" something without having to work for it. Gambling is mentioned in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, alongside drinking alcohol as an abomination, a sin, and a grave harm to mankind.
I think this issue is an example of trade getting dangerously close to values; For example what if the WTO told us we need to lower the age for legal pornagraphy to 17, to bring it in line with some European nations? I hope the WTO forces France to allow religious symbols in school again, since their new law forbidding it will ruin the religeous headscarf, skullcap, and large cross market. No, that would be terrible, because mixing trade and values is silly.
In the US, gambling has always been heavily regulated (my views aside, it seems to be the will of the people), and they want to keep it that way. Online gambling, just like the online pharmacies pimping everything nowadays, are extremely hard to regulate.
So in short, this is not a good example of the US being arrogant, and they really do have a point regarding laws and tradition.
After RTFA I guess I don't really disagree with the ruling. I'm just glad I live in a state that hasn't passed a law forbidding local telocoms; It's nice when state governments give communities the same benefit of the doubt as the Fed when it comes to regulation. Though I do wonder how many of those state laws are consistent with state constitutions, but that's another issue entirely.
I think the problem lies in the fact that state governments are even more beholden to big lobbying groups than the Federal gov't. I'm glad I live in a state that doesn't suck. When the moneybags start flowing, that will probably change however.
The USPS is not a government entity.
And you should check your history. It started as a public entity and then was privatized only recently (1990s). Which is exactly what this comment suggested doing with telecom. The USPS privatization was done in the best interest of consumers, to spur competition where there was none before, not because it was thought to be illegal for the government to do such a thing. Why shouldn't a town be able to take the opposite action, starting a local telecom, to spur competition where there was none before?
The libertarian ideal that government should be owning pretty much anything has nothing to do with the republicrats, either...
There's a pretty big split in the party between small-government libertarian-esque people and "big-government conservatives" who like large governments that push conservative values. As you say however, it's pretty obvious which is in control of the Republican party and the white house right now. I for one am not looking forward to the choice of big-government or big-government in the next election.
Of course, how can I espouse libertarian ideals, yet defend a local telecom? Well, a truly libertarian _federal_ government would *not* push its own values on states so much. It would pretty much stay our of affairs that do not violate law. In other words, if a community wanted to become practically socialist, I think that's up to the local people to decide and not for the state to dictate.
But when it's click windows update, somehow it's some monumental task thats just the worst thing imaginable.
Well, Windows Update pretty much always insists on rebooting the machine, which is irritating to some users (i.e. power users). On *nix this only needs to be done for (fairly rare) kernel exploits and not simple library/program updates.
The mini is quite a bit smaller than its older sibling. Rather than being like a small tape player, it is practically the size of a cell phone. Thus, a lot of people buying it are ones who wanted more portability than previous models afforded. I'm going to buy a MuVo2 as soon as they are in stock again; I expect the small HD mp3 players to dominate the market eventually.
You're supposed to use /dev/input/mice now, while /dev/psaux is depricated. Point XFree to it in your /etc/X11/XFree86Config-4 file and you're done. See the Linux 2.6 Input Drivers FAQ for common inout problems with solutions.
You forgot to put your pinky to your mouth, pause for a moment, say "five beeelion dollars", and end it with an evil laugh.
(c) Me.
But can't you realease a Free version of it? It's not enough just to see the source!
- Annoying Zealot
With as much cash as they have in reserve, I don't think MS will disappear in my lifetime. They could become a radically different company compared to what they are today, however. Look at how IBM has changed from 20 years ago, when *they* were the desktop monopoly. Of course, as Linus said, "I'll know we've won when they release MS Office for Linux".
I don't think its really getting worse for MS right now; Compared to a few years ago, I think their products have been getting better, spurred on by competition. What they won't have in the future are the fat margins of the "early winner" that they've enjoyed up to now. Those never last forever in *any* industry.
Yeah, 20% only leaves about 400 million potential customers. Not much money to be made there...
Wrong time frame I think; I first started hearing rumors about it being integrated in the NT 5 timeframe in 1998 while I worked there as an intern (NT 5 later was rebranded Win2k). The rumors came from *outside* the company when people noticed substantial changes in how the betas handled networking. What is sure is that TCP/IP mostly got rewritten, and that it has some curiously non-IPV4 compliant corner case behavior that happened to be identical to the BSD stack. More power to them if they found something better and ported it and hacked on it from there.
MS isn't afraid to tear-out and replace modules, or even to try some competing approaches for a while (usually an experimental new version alongside the existing one being slowly extended). That is, until one of them gets a bad BillG review, of course. The project I was working on in NT-imaging seems to have been canned, which is too bad; That time the experiment lost. The only user-visible evidence in Windows that it ever existed is a control panel icon a coworker of mine made.
It depends on the kind of game. Carmack's games are like the 1990's "special effects" movies, which were driven more by technical achievements than a good plot. As time goes on, it gets much harder- either you have to come up with increasingly complex technical achievements (like Doom3 or HL2), or combine reasonably complex technical systems with a good plot and gameplay, which are hard to develop, integrate, and polish on tight schedules. Games really are following in the footsteps of movies. Here's also to hoping that independent games will still exist like independent movies...
So you've proved I make mistakes when I write in a hurry, while conveniently ignoring facts. Now that I've had some sleep, let's play the anal-retentive grammar game. We'll start with your grandparent post:
so what does that prove, that people cant marry whoever they want?
Incorrect capitalization, "cant" is not a word, it's spelled "can't". (1)
just because you endorse some kind of caste system where only the wealthy can marry each other doesnt mean thats how things are done in this country.
Again this is missing proper capitalization, and "doesnt" isn't a word; It should be spelled "doesn't".
if you dislike that, go to the middle east or india- they wont let people marry outside their 'station'
The sentence is missing capitalization, and "middle east" is a proper noun and should also be capitalized, as well as "india".
Now, we can move on to your current post:
If anything, I would say Im one of the biggest proponents of free enterprise than the majority of people on this website.
First, "Im" should be "I'm", but at least you are now capitalizing sentences. Second, it is grammatically incorrect to say "one of the biggest" followed by "than"; You can't express both group membership and comparison at the same time. You probably meant to say "I would say I'm a bigger proponent of free enterprise than the majority of people on this website." or alternatively "I would say I'm one of the biggest proponents of free enterprise on this website." Briefly addressing content, this says very little because half the people on Slashdot are Socialists but don't realize they are. Well, some are Europeans who do know, so kudos to them.
No, I figure Cheney only serves the rich because he is a member of the Old Boy Network, just like Bush.
Just like Kerry's wife, and his buddy Edward Kennedy. Notice that Edwards' name doesn't come in here. In fact I notice that you never even once brought up Edwards. Do you even know anything about him, or are you just a fan-boy of the current front runner? I wonder if you supported Dean before. I don't want to vote for Bush, so I don't think its wrong want the Democrats to come up with a better choice than someone who's been inside the beltway since 1969.
If you want to spew half baked ideas, you will have to do it against someone far less certain on the basis of their political ethics than myself.
Of course that isn't clear, as the only thing you've contributed to this whole discussion so far is saying roughly "I imagine that there is a prenuptial agreement" (Notice I can spell prenuptial correctly, which you spelled as "prenupual"). The rest has been trying to defend views you don't bother to elaborate. Although, it seems that you like Kerry, and clearly don't want anyone to spoil your idealistic image of him. You also seem believe (albeit incorrectly) I am a Republican. Going back to grammar, several style guides consider the use of "myself" where "me" is appropriate to be incorrect. By sheer force of use however, it has become accepted. You seem to be trying to do the same with dropping capitalization and the apostrophe. Are you a fan of e. e. cummings or something?
Health care isnt going to get 'fixed'
Hence my use of the word "want". If you instead ask me to predict what would happen, I'd say that Edwards' plans if given a chance would improve things, while Kerry's would make things worse. Of course, we can argue about whether Bush's "big government plan" is even worse than Kerry's, but I'd rather try for one that has a chance of actually helping. Call me an idealist.
There is way too much money being thrown at Congress for things to ever change.
And leading them all in the U.S. Congress is John Kerry. Of course you'll just point out that G. W. Bush is earning a l
Yeah, it looks like they think they are the first to support the idea of having different backgrounds on each virtual desktop. I was doing that 8 years ago in X with CTWM... sigh. Enlightenment also does pretty much everything they describe except the animation, and the animation sure sounds a lot like OSX's Expose'. Nothing like being able to put 2 and 2 together and patent the number 4.
It's good to know he's not the type of person who would do anything to earn more money, and instead just married into it. I feel much better now.
Of course I'd feel even better if Edwards won the nomination, since he can actually beat Bush *and* Nader.
Oh sorry I misread the question somewhat (GPL!=LGPL). The LGPL gets really flakey when you talk about C++ objects. The act of linking includes code for inline functions, which ends up in their binary, not dynamically linked (oops). Templates are even worse. So depending on how I expect it to be used and what I'm going to tolerate, I carefully choose between the licenses to best approximate what I want. The FLTK toolkit does this another way, for example, by clarifying their interpretatation of the LGPL, explicitly allowing static linking. I have no idea whether that legally holds any water however, so I don't use that approach.
I use it when above everything else I just want easy compatibility. errno.h would be a great example. Of course I didn't write that, but in some of my subprojects I have headers of definitions that I'd rather anyone can use. That way I can minimize glue between my system and theirs, mapping between essentially identical structures or identifiers. Hopefully that made sense :)
Two examples are a vector library (2d,3d vector operations) and a numerical utility library (filling in some of the simple gaps in math.h and STL's algorithm.h). I've never used a BSD-style licence on any significant code modules however, and don't plan on doing so any time soon.
If you "fuck all" your users, you will get no reward.
If you use a BSD license, you won't get any reward either. However, the "fuck all" approach seems to have worked ok for Theo so far. We'll see how Linus becomes in his old age.
If I'm giving away my code, what's wrong with expecting the same thing in return? Is it that you don't like the GPL, or that you wanted to use something released as GPL but were unwilling to share? You've lost nothing if I don't release my code. Thus, giving away my code with restrictions doesn't take away anything from anyone. It's not like people who use the GPL haven't heard of BSD style licenses.
Having released significant projects under the GPL, the only problems we've ever had are companies complaining they couldn't steal our code without negotiating another license (duh), and people who wanted us to adopt a license that included an advertising clause for their university (um, no thanks).
I usually use BSD on definitions and small libraries. That's because BSD is an excellent license if all you want is compatibility and don't care about building community. If you want to understand community, look at the relative size and "forkiness" of Linux vs. BSD development communities.
But do they offer indemnity? I was told I should demand it whenever I get a contract to use software, and I have a nagging feeling they might have included some other people's works.