A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
I'm just going to make this one point, and not bother with the rest of your post - because it all falls apart when I correct your mistaken assumption.
What the dictionary says has exactly the square root of fuck all to do with anything. The Dictionary definition is not necessarily the LEGAL definition of the word. And that is exactly the case here.
Is there a grounding for this in Mein Kampf or in speeches Hitler has made?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: HELL, Yes.
When you read Mein Kampf, you realise a) exactly how out to lunch, sick & twisted Hitler really was, and b) how out to lunch Chamberlain & the other European politicos were to even TRY to negociate with him.
All I was saying was that conservatives tend to avoid new information. Kind of the same way rocks tend to avoid moving.
It might be more accurate to say that rocks tend to avoid moving until enough force is applied... in other words, that they change their mind when the feel that there is enough evidence to WARRANT changing their mind. But as with the rock.. just because there is no "visible" movement, it doesn't mean that the information (or force) is discarded or ignored - it just means that there has been *enough* force.
I am very open to new ideas - I have always been. But, being conservative, I don't go with the fad de jour, or change my mind simply because fashion dictates that I should, or because this new idea is "cool". I change my mind when there is enough evidence that I believe the change is warranted.
I don't see anything close- or narrow-minded about that.
You came back with an excellent justification of conservatism which had nothing to do with the original fact--that YES, I meant to say that Conservatives like to pick viewpoints they hear that justify their positions while liberals TEND to evaluate them simply due to the definition of liberal and conservative.
And what you missed is my one and only point. Just because conservatives don't change their mind at the drop of a hat does NOT mean, in any way, shape or form, that they are "picking viewpoints that justify their positions". It simply means that there is not enough to convince them.
What you just stated ignores the definition of both conservative AND liberal - the one that you, yourself supplied.
All other things being equal (which we all know is never the case), the conservative will TEND to stick with the already-established, traditional view.
And all other things being equal (which we still know is never the case), the liberl will TEND to go with the new idea.
There are liberal bigots, and there are conservative bigots. There are liberal close-minded, arrogant pricks who are utterly convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong.... and there are conservative close-minded, arrogant pricks who are utterly convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
The bottom line is that your generalization & categorization of both conservative AND liberal is inaccurate, incorrect and.... dare I say it?..... close-minded and arrogant.
But then again, what can one say about an AC who, by definition, is a coward?
From the dictionary entry for conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
tending to != incapable of, or unwilling to
Isn't that kind of like saying that rocks "tend to" not move? Let me give you directions to a place I know that has witnessed many, many rockslides over the years. You can tell me how "tending to" do something means it'll never happen. But be sure to shout... I'm gonna be off standing at a safe distance.
Thinking that it is stupid to throw out the practices of the past without examining the alternatives to see if they are better can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the "thing' involved.
From the definition of Liberal:
BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
"Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it"
Intentionally ignoring what has been done in the past, and changing for the sake of change, can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the "thing" involved.
Remarkable symmetry, don't you think?
Your own definition of Liberal also notably does not preclude being bound by OTHER things.... like PC, liberal orthodoxy, or... dare I say it... close-mindedness and intellectual arrogance.
But then again, I wouldn't know - I "tend to" be conservative.
I think the problem with Microsoft pointing out violations of their patents in Linux is that they would be simultaneously pointing out that many of their commercial competitors are also violating those patents. That would require them to sue those competitors, or else the patent would become invalid. Then the competitor can point out how Microsoft violates their patents.
I'm sorry, but I consider that to be a bit of a bogus argument.
If you don't intend to sue, or protect your IP, then it's just FUD. And to reiterate - as far as I know, nobody, anywhere, has pointed to a single example of a Microsoft patent being in Linux.
The only difference between Microsoft at this point and SCO is that Microsoft is trying to not have to spend a fortune on lawyers. But I think their claims are just as baseless.
There's no doubt that Linux violates patents that are in Microsoft's portfolio
Actually, I think there's a shitload and a half of doubt. Especially that nobody's ever seen or given evidence of a *single* microsoft violation - and precious few violations of any sort. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm not willing to SAY that there's never been one. Because as soon as I do, somebody's gonna post links pointing to them:-)
Ironically, that could be said to be the actual intent of a computer science undergraduate education. Over there, maybe it does - who knows?
Well, that's a mistake a lot of people make, I think.
CS teaches you computer SCIENCE. How to develop algorithms, and how to evaluate them. But it doesn't teach *programming*.
It's even more basic than that, and it's something that SHOULD be burned into the skull of every technician, programmer, or IT worker by the time they've been messing with these silly machines for more than 6 months.
To stretch another analogy, you would expect a toaster to be able to tell when the bread is done, but you wouldn't expect it to be able to plug itself in and get the bread out of the breadbox for you.
Actually, it's NOT a bad analogy - becuase the reality is that most people look at their computers in exactly the same way they do toasters. They expect to be able to turn it on and have it work. Period.
You don't need to know what frequency band or collision detection scheme wireless uses in order secure it any more than you need to know how to build a car from scratch in order to check the oil. If somebody can't be bothered to change the defaults of their access point then they don't have the right to complain that somebody else is using it.
Are you going to tell me that you actually read the owner's manual that came with your car?
And let's be honest - *most* people even only know that they need air in their tires when the guy at the gas stations TELLS them that they do.
If you set up WEP and somebody hacks through it that's a different matter, but this was an open network.
And you know that HOW? There is no mention in that very brief article that the connection was protected, encrypted, or anything else. But given the fact that he was charged because the person who DID own the connection complained - had KNOWLEDGE of what was happening - I would guess that that it was, in fact, protected, assuming that anybody who had the wherewithal to know his link was being used would also be literate enough to protect it - which implies hacking.
I will, however, freely admit that I have no more basis in fact for saying that than you do to say that it *wasn't* protected.
Someone who CHOOSES to be willfully ignorant about how to secure their wireless network is not an innocent 3 year old walking amongst child molesters.
I suspect that it would be rather difficult to "choose" to be willfully ignorant if you're so "willfully ignorant" that you're absolutely unaware of the fact that there is something to be "willfully ignorant" ABOUT.
You think people really spend any time worrying about (or should HAVE to) how the engine in their car works? No. They give it gas, they push on this here peddle, and it goes faster.
You think people really spend any time worrying about (or should HAVE to) how their wireless network works? No. They turn on their computer, hit this here button, and it works.
That's circular reasoning, since there is no additional expense incurred by MS's use, by definition it is not being used against you. MS's benefit is not your loss, it is not a zero-sum game.
*ahem*........ Can you say "forced upgrades, boys and girls? I knew you could...."
I've had to hire people before in different situations. And with what I've learned in the past, and from my experience, this is what I have:
When given the choice between hiring a recent CS grad or hiring somebody with a diploma from a 2 or 3 year programming course in a collage, I'd rather hire the collage grad.
Why? Because CS teaches ALGORITHMS, but collage teaches PROGRAMMING. If I hd to hand-hold one more CS graduate who spends 2 days agonizing over whether to use a quicksort of a bubblesort when faced with an unordered list of 10 items, I'm gonna kill somebody.
Life cycle is definatly a good idea - I'm actually surprised it's not there already. (I went to school 25 years ago, but for Soviet Studies, not CS)
*sigh*, this election's cycle fraud hasn't even happened yet, and you're already blaming the victim. As for John Kerry's recent comments, please.
This election's cycle's fraud hasn't even happened yet, and you're assuming that it will..... and you're also assuming that the victem will be the Democrats.
Please.
I don't care *what* happens in this election - I'm sure people like you will find a way to explain results you don't like as the fault of the other guy, instead of acknowledgeing that maybe - just *maybe* - people really DID vote for the other guy.
If that is true, then why did the people in Ukraine cry bloody murder when the exit polls didn't match the official tally? In fact, many countries use exit polling to determine if elections in developing countries are fraudulent or not.
Ummmmm.... because they didn't KNOW that exit polls are inaccurate as hell?
And countries don't use exit polls to determine fraud - election OVERSIGHT groups do. And not because it's accurate - but because, even with it's inaccuracies, it's often the only tool they DO have.
I can wait a week while the final tallies come in (even though Canada can get it done in about a day)
You may have to wait 24 hours to get TOTAL results from some of the more physically isolated, spread out ridings, but even there, the WINNER of the election is generally known within 1 1/2-2 hours after the polls close - well under 24 hours. In an urban riding, you can count on final, complete results within an hour or so.
The American system doesn't even come CLOSE in terms of efficiency, reliability, or auditability. But at least it costs a lot of money.
The exit polls will give a good idea as to the results anyway.
Exit polls are, have been and will always be, crap. There's a damned good reason why in a lot of countries they're specifically illegal - because they ARE so unreliable.
I'm sure there's more to it than you describe, but the way you have it laid out it seems you'd only need to have two people in collusion to swing a lot of votes a different direction. It would be risky in case there was a recount, but even so...
Well, you know, that's the thing..... one person nominated by one party, one paerson nominated by the other. Problem solved.
Don't like that? Take our (Canada's) system.
We have the DRO and PC - Deputy Returning Officer, and the Poll Clerk. They're hired by Elections Canada. And each party contesting the election in that riding has the right to have a scrutineer stand over the DRO & the PC WHILE THEY COUNT. They are not allowed to physically touch the ballots, but they are allowed to see them, and contest any that that think are invalid.
Now. You have two government Employees. In a "normal" riding, you have representatives of the Tories, Liberals, NDP, and probably one or two independants, the Green Party, and maybe even a Marxist-Lenninist or two.
EACH OF THOSE PARTIES CAN HAVE SOMEBODY STANDING AND WATCHING. ALL DAY. *Not* just for the vote count.
Trust me on this, folks - you do not get any games played with the ballots during Canadian elections.
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
[blockquote]Did you read the whole article? Did you notice that they are very aware of your kind of activity? That they asked for the right to sue people like you for choosing to block their email from your own servers?[/blockquote]
That's fine - I actually don't mind that at all.
But I suspect that they'll have a hard time convincing a judge that my users - who ACTIVELY AGREE with how I filter my mail, and how I administer my mail server - that I don't have the right to do so.
It's like me going to pick up the mail for my mother, and her asking me to leave any advertisements in the garbage. You really think Tony's pizza will be able to sue me for intereering with their right to send my mother their menu?
Take it a step further. There is a company in town, that for a price, will send pizza parlour menus to every mailing address in town..... for a fee.
You think the judge would rule any differently because I threw 5,000 pizza menus in the garbage like she asked me to?
[blockquote]the point is, that a company like Google and its google of lawyers gets away with murder... if I started a company today that jsut copied books, videos and websites and displayed then on my URL... there would be a 3 second trial that would result in my hanging.[/blockquote]
I just bought myself a scanner. I'm going to get every book I can lay my hands on, and scan them into my computer system in it's entirety. Then I'm gonna open a kiosk downtown and, for the grand price of $1.99, I'm going to let anybody who wants to do a search on titles, authors, phrases - whatever they want.
When they get a match, my system will print out a list of all the stores in town that will sell them the book in question - and I'll even throw in the price of the book into the printout.
Now -just how bloody long do you think it will take for EVERY BOOKSTORE IN TOWN to be clamoring after me to make sure that I have their entire up-to-date pricelist?
About 30 seconds, max. Becuase I'm NOT "stealing their revenue". I'm NOT making money by illegally copying their content. I'm providing a service - and that service ENHANCES the value of their business, and will increase their sales.
The only judge what would even think about convicting me would be the one who just received the FOAD letter from the 37th publisher refusing to publish the gripping courtroom drama he's been writing since collage.
Please, for the sake of fairness, please go to the e360insight website Read for yourself what they have to say. Consider it carefully, go back later to gain additional insights. (Heh, I said insights.)
Un-bloody-real.... I went and visited the poor benighted spammers. I couldn't resist the urge - I clicked on the "contact us" link. ANd what's the first thing it did? They wanted my EMAIL address.
Well, they can contact me at dream-freaking@on.com - that's the one I gave when I posted the following comment to what they had on the link supplied:
First - if you think I'm going to give a spammer my email address, you're sadly mistaken.
Second - spamhaus, as you very well know, doesn't block a damned thing - individual mail admins - like ME - decide ON OUR OWN if we want to take their recommendations or not.
And before you get pissy about a UK organisation ignoring a USA court, just thank god that they have, and that they CAN - becuase otherwise you'd be hauled to court in every country that had decent anti-spam legislation.
And I'm pretty sure that you'd consider THAT to be an affront to the liberties of every red-blooded american as well, wouldn't you?
And the lord said, "Let there be light!"
And Moses, who was the chief electrician at the time, pulled the switch, blew the fuse, and fucked up the entire miriacle........
Perhaps you are an idiot or you must've voted for Bush, which explains your lack of comprehension of ethics.
We need a Goodwin corrolorary for Bush. WHy the bloody hell does he wind up getting pulled into everything?
Geeze, people.
Slashdot Mirror
What the dictionary says has exactly the square root of fuck all to do with anything. The Dictionary definition is not necessarily the LEGAL definition of the word. And that is exactly the case here.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: HELL, Yes.
When you read Mein Kampf, you realise a) exactly how out to lunch, sick & twisted Hitler really was, and b) how out to lunch Chamberlain & the other European politicos were to even TRY to negociate with him.
I don't see anything close- or narrow-minded about that.
And what you missed is my one and only point. Just because conservatives don't change their mind at the drop of a hat does NOT mean, in any way, shape or form, that they are "picking viewpoints that justify their positions". It simply means that there is not enough to convince them.
What you just stated ignores the definition of both conservative AND liberal - the one that you, yourself supplied.
All other things being equal (which we all know is never the case), the conservative will TEND to stick with the already-established, traditional view.
And all other things being equal (which we still know is never the case), the liberl will TEND to go with the new idea.
There are liberal bigots, and there are conservative bigots. There are liberal close-minded, arrogant pricks who are utterly convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong
The bottom line is that your generalization & categorization of both conservative AND liberal is inaccurate, incorrect and
But then again, what can one say about an AC who, by definition, is a coward?
Isn't that kind of like saying that rocks "tend to" not move? Let me give you directions to a place I know that has witnessed many, many rockslides over the years. You can tell me how "tending to" do something means it'll never happen. But be sure to shout
Thinking that it is stupid to throw out the practices of the past without examining the alternatives to see if they are better can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the "thing' involved.
"Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it"
Intentionally ignoring what has been done in the past, and changing for the sake of change, can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the "thing" involved.
Remarkable symmetry, don't you think?
Your own definition of Liberal also notably does not preclude being bound by OTHER things
But then again, I wouldn't know - I "tend to" be conservative.
If you don't intend to sue, or protect your IP, then it's just FUD. And to reiterate - as far as I know, nobody, anywhere, has pointed to a single example of a Microsoft patent being in Linux.
The only difference between Microsoft at this point and SCO is that Microsoft is trying to not have to spend a fortune on lawyers. But I think their claims are just as baseless.
I guess there just has to be one in every croud
The drivers for the rest of the world wouldn't work. Does that mean all the Pakastanis in New York City would be unemployed?
IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!
Are you going to tell me that you actually read the owner's manual that came with your car? And let's be honest - *most* people even only know that they need air in their tires when the guy at the gas stations TELLS them that they do.
And you know that HOW? There is no mention in that very brief article that the connection was protected, encrypted, or anything else. But given the fact that he was charged because the person who DID own the connection complained - had KNOWLEDGE of what was happening - I would guess that that it was, in fact, protected, assuming that anybody who had the wherewithal to know his link was being used would also be literate enough to protect it - which implies hacking.
I will, however, freely admit that I have no more basis in fact for saying that than you do to say that it *wasn't* protected.
Someone who CHOOSES to be willfully ignorant about how to secure their wireless network is not an innocent 3 year old walking amongst child molesters.
I suspect that it would be rather difficult to "choose" to be willfully ignorant if you're so "willfully ignorant" that you're absolutely unaware of the fact that there is something to be "willfully ignorant" ABOUT. You think people really spend any time worrying about (or should HAVE to) how the engine in their car works? No. They give it gas, they push on this here peddle, and it goes faster. You think people really spend any time worrying about (or should HAVE to) how their wireless network works? No. They turn on their computer, hit this here button, and it works.
*ahem*
I've had to hire people before in different situations. And with what I've learned in the past, and from my experience, this is what I have:
When given the choice between hiring a recent CS grad or hiring somebody with a diploma from a 2 or 3 year programming course in a collage, I'd rather hire the collage grad.
Why? Because CS teaches ALGORITHMS, but collage teaches PROGRAMMING. If I hd to hand-hold one more CS graduate who spends 2 days agonizing over whether to use a quicksort of a bubblesort when faced with an unordered list of 10 items, I'm gonna kill somebody.
Life cycle is definatly a good idea - I'm actually surprised it's not there already. (I went to school 25 years ago, but for Soviet Studies, not CS)
This election's cycle's fraud hasn't even happened yet, and you're assuming that it will
Please.
I don't care *what* happens in this election - I'm sure people like you will find a way to explain results you don't like as the fault of the other guy, instead of acknowledgeing that maybe - just *maybe* - people really DID vote for the other guy.
Ummmmm
And countries don't use exit polls to determine fraud - election OVERSIGHT groups do. And not because it's accurate - but because, even with it's inaccuracies, it's often the only tool they DO have.
The American system doesn't even come CLOSE in terms of efficiency, reliability, or auditability. But at least it costs a lot of money.
The exit polls will give a good idea as to the results anyway.
Exit polls are, have been and will always be, crap. There's a damned good reason why in a lot of countries they're specifically illegal - because they ARE so unreliable.
Well, you know, that's the thing
Don't like that? Take our (Canada's) system.
We have the DRO and PC - Deputy Returning Officer, and the Poll Clerk. They're hired by Elections Canada. And each party contesting the election in that riding has the right to have a scrutineer stand over the DRO & the PC WHILE THEY COUNT. They are not allowed to physically touch the ballots, but they are allowed to see them, and contest any that that think are invalid.
Now. You have two government Employees. In a "normal" riding, you have representatives of the Tories, Liberals, NDP, and probably one or two independants, the Green Party, and maybe even a Marxist-Lenninist or two.
EACH OF THOSE PARTIES CAN HAVE SOMEBODY STANDING AND WATCHING. ALL DAY. *Not* just for the vote count.
Trust me on this, folks - you do not get any games played with the ballots during Canadian elections.
[blockquote]Did you read the whole article? Did you notice that they are very aware of your kind of activity? That they asked for the right to sue people like you for choosing to block their email from your own servers?[/blockquote]
..... for a fee.
You think the judge would rule any differently because I threw 5,000 pizza menus in the garbage like she asked me to?
That's fine - I actually don't mind that at all.
But I suspect that they'll have a hard time convincing a judge that my users - who ACTIVELY AGREE with how I filter my mail, and how I administer my mail server - that I don't have the right to do so.
It's like me going to pick up the mail for my mother, and her asking me to leave any advertisements in the garbage. You really think Tony's pizza will be able to sue me for intereering with their right to send my mother their menu? Take it a step further. There is a company in town, that for a price, will send pizza parlour menus to every mailing address in town
[blockquote]the point is, that a company like Google and its google of lawyers gets away with murder... if I started a company today that jsut copied books, videos and websites and displayed then on my URL... there would be a 3 second trial that would result in my hanging.[/blockquote]
I just bought myself a scanner. I'm going to get every book I can lay my hands on, and scan them into my computer system in it's entirety. Then I'm gonna open a kiosk downtown and, for the grand price of $1.99, I'm going to let anybody who wants to do a search on titles, authors, phrases - whatever they want.
When they get a match, my system will print out a list of all the stores in town that will sell them the book in question - and I'll even throw in the price of the book into the printout.
Now -just how bloody long do you think it will take for EVERY BOOKSTORE IN TOWN to be clamoring after me to make sure that I have their entire up-to-date pricelist?
About 30 seconds, max. Becuase I'm NOT "stealing their revenue". I'm NOT making money by illegally copying their content. I'm providing a service - and that service ENHANCES the value of their business, and will increase their sales.
The only judge what would even think about convicting me would be the one who just received the FOAD letter from the 37th publisher refusing to publish the gripping courtroom drama he's been writing since collage.
Un-bloody-real
Well, they can contact me at dream-freaking@on.com - that's the one I gave when I posted the following comment to what they had on the link supplied:
And the lord said, "Let there be light!" And Moses, who was the chief electrician at the time, pulled the switch, blew the fuse, and fucked up the entire miriacle ........
Perhaps you are an idiot or you must've voted for Bush, which explains your lack of comprehension of ethics. We need a Goodwin corrolorary for Bush. WHy the bloody hell does he wind up getting pulled into everything? Geeze, people.