Seriously...I'm a fairly computer literate guy. I started off with DOS back in '91 on an 8086, and progressed from there. I can program fairly well in multiple languages, I run several LAMP servers, I can even dig through raw disc sectors and hex and generally achieve the result I want. Yet linux still aggravates the shit outta me. For some things it's awesome - I have a mini SLAX disc that I carry with me everywhere, and it's come in handy many times, and runs without problem on every computer I've ever tried it on. But EVERY time I try to install linux on my home machine, something goes wrong. And usually it's the stupidest things possible, which just aggrivates me more.
Take last night for example. I heard that Ubuntu was a stable and reliable distro, with lots of good software available, and a solid future. I prefer KDE to Gnome though, so I got Kubuntu. I go to install it, and find out that the build in partitioning tool isn't able to do what I need it to do in order to create a swap partition. Alright, not a huge problem, but I do need to boot into windows to fix it. So, half an hour later I'm doing the actual install. Everything copies over ok, I reboot, and it's good to go.
Well, the first thing I notice is that Kubuntu is taking longer to boot up than my Windows XP installation. Not a good thing to see after hearing about how much more efficient linux is. Anyway, after waiting a good 3 minutes to log in, I finally have my brand new desktop. Yay! Now to test it out....navigate to my MP3 directory...double click a song....what the hell?? What do you mean "Amarok cannot play MP3's"???? Who ever heard of an audio player that can't play MP3's??? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of!
Alright, click the button to download new software. What's this? "Restricted Software"?? What the hell? Now it's asking for my password. Well...I guess I got nothing to lose. Type in my password. Oh. Now I have to restart Amarok. Ok, do that.
WHAT THE HELL?? What do you mean "Amarok cannot play MP3's"???? I JUST INSTALLED THE GOD-DAMN.......oh, forget it. Try again. Click download, type in password, restart Amarok, and....great. It crashed. Well aint that just peachy. How about instead of sending you a crash report I just reboot back into windows?
Now, I realize that "Amarok" isn't Linux any more than WMP is Windows. However, as I've said, every time I've tried to install linux, SOMETHING goes wrong either during the install process, or within the first 5 minutes of booting into the GUI. EVERY time I've installed Linux it's been nothing but crashes and incompatibilities which usually take hours to resolve. So now, the first problem I encounter usually has me giving up in disgust and booting into windows instead. Say what you want about MS products, but I NEVER have these kinds of issues with XP. And that's without even going into all the other advantages that windows has over linux, such as more software and more current drivers. Personally, the ONLY reason I keep trying Linux is because of all the "benefits" I keep hearing about from the loser fan-boys on here. So far it hasn't even come close to living up to the hype.
Environmental groups are in the business of capitalizing on doom-and-gloom scenarios. While you're right in that they could abandon the global warming business and focus on something else, that's like saying Microsoft could abandon MS Office, and focus on Windows instead. Sure, they could, but why would they want to? The more products they sell, the more money they can pull in.
Not to mention that a lot of these environmental groups have a lot of emotional/ideological investment in these issues. Maybe YOU are rational enough to be able to look at the research and say "oh, guess I was wrong, oh well", but most people are not. The environmental movement is notoriously bad at admitting that they're wrong - if you need an example, look at the continued opposition to nuclear power and modern incineration plants in the face of global warming and waste build-up. Environmental groups, just like animal welfare groups, and most special-interest groups, rarely base their actions and campaigns on science alone. Most of them are primarily based on an appeal to emotion and touchy-feely mumbo-jumbo, with a bit of science thrown in to try and give them some credibility amongst the sceptics. I'm not saying that they're all worthless, but they only employ science where it can benefit them. If the scientific facts contradict what these groups want, well, it doesn't matter, "because we have to stop the poor little baby seals from dying! look how cute and fuzzy they are! you heartless beast, how can you quote scientists at a time like this?? besides, they're probably all bought off by the evil capitalist nazi corporations anyway! patriarchal bastards. probably racist too...."
Well, imagine that you're a scientist being paid by the Sierra club to do global warming research, and you turn around and say to them "well, sorry guys, but it turns out all this global warming is actually just a product of increased solar activity". Or you're a scientist hired by greenpeace to research the dangers of nuclear reactors, and you turn around and tell them "gee guys, it looks like Nuclear power is actually the most viable and least polluting source of energy we have!". What do you think will happen?
Regardless of the fact that they never told you what conclusion they wanted, it seems likely that, were you to reach these conclusions, you would not be in their employ for very much longer. In fact it seems quite likely that your research would be quietly buried, and your funding revoked due to "budgetary constraints". So the end result is the same. If you work for an organizations which has a vested interest in reaching a specific conclusion, then you have a monetary incentive to reach the conclusions that they want. Period.
I only got excited about this series when I heard a rumour that they were going to make a movie called "Harry Secrets and the Chamber Pot". Unfortunately it turns out that I was being had. Ever since, I've been pretty disillusioned about the whole thing.
That doesn't surprise me too much. From what I've seen while traveling in the south, people there seem to try and act a lot more "righteous". The thing is, if anything I've had more luck with women in the southern states than in the northern ones:) I'm not going to try and pretend to understand it, but either way, you can't sum up all of the US with any one stereotype. You may as well try to stereotype a typical "european". It just doesn't work.
The big problem with you yanks is that you can't seem to make up your mind about what a minor is in the first place. Age of consent laws vary from state to state but are generally 17-18. But you let them drive when they're 16. But they can't buy alcohol until they're 21. But they can use a gun as soon as they're old enough to hold it. None of it makes the least bit of sense. And you're not alone in that; here in Canada we're almost as bad. In the end though, how can you protect minors when you can't even figure out what a minor IS?
They also claim that only 35% of these abuses are reported, so unless I'm getting the math wrong, his would mean that something like 100% of females and 40% of males are molested before they're 18. Seems a little high, eh?
Instead of destroying rockets mid-flight, don't give their owner a reason to build and launch them in the first place.
It seems that you're in need of a nice long beating with a clue by four. The only way for the US to avoid giving people a reason to attack it is to nuke itself before anyone else gets the chance. If you destroy the infrastructure, the people, and the land, then yeah, nobody will want it.
Seriously, how ignorant of history must one be to make such ridiculous statements? Are you aware that the world DIDN'T start in 1960?
Not "the rest of the world". Sales tax in Canada is never included in the price. I'm sure there are other countries where it's the same. Granted, it was inconvenient until I learned some basic math, but the other poster hit it exactly - when taxes are part of the advertised price, it becomes much easier to raise taxes.
Yeah, right, buddy. Maybe the population as a whole is a little more liberal up there in America Junior, but if AT&T, Verizon or any other U.S. cell provider even floats that idea in a meeting, the Bible-thumpers will start up the boycotts and letter-writing campaigns and raise all kinds of hell to make sure it never comes to fruition.
Yep. After all, those dang bible-thumpin' hillbillies did such an efficient job of banning pornographic books, magazines, phone-sex lines, "adult shops", VHS, DVD's, Cable TV stations, and internet sites, that this cell-phone thingy should be a breeze for them, eh?
Anyway, the computer thing isn't open to discussion. Look here for a look into the North Korean school system. Granted the school being showcased is one for the children of the "elite", but one thing that Kim has taken seriously is education, and I would imagine that the rest of the schools would be similar, if not quite as extravagant.
This is my favourite quote from that page:
The first place our dynamo little guide led us was the computer room. And yes, they even use Windows in North Korea. Though one doubts Microsoft ever sees their cut!
Oddly enough the students were using the English version of Windows 98 rather than the Korean one. When I asked Mr. Huk why he looked at me like I was an idiot and said because there wasn't a Korean version. A 'fact' that must come as a huge surprise to Microsoft Korea!
I think it's safe to assume that not many have personal computers, but they do have access to them in schools, and some businesses make use of them as well. It's safe to say that there are SOME computers in pretty much every country in the world, including the poorest ones.
The quote basically states the obvious - that essential liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly should not be sacrificed in order to secure temporary safety. An example of this would be making rallies illegal through the justification that someone attending a rally might get injured.
What the quote leaves unstated is that, conversely, non-essential liberties can and should be sacrificed in order to secure either a temporary or permanent increase in safety, and that giving up some essential liberties is necessary in order to ensure long-term safety. As an example of the former, think seatbelt laws. As an example of the latter, think incarceration of murderers. In both cases individuals are losing liberties, but neither case is an example of giving up essential liberties for temporary safety.
As to what your Attorney General thinks, I really don't care. If his quote wasn't taken out of context, then he's an idiot, but he's an idiot appointed by your democratically elected president, and confirmed by your democratically elected senate. He must be doing something right. Moreover, the guy doesn't get to make laws. He's basically an over-glorified lawyer. The only danger posed by his beliefs is that he'll incorrectly advise the president on a legal matter. However, any illegal actions by the president resulting from such bad advice would be caught and corrected by the senate and the supreme court, so the damage he can do is minimal.
No, actually, swamp gas from a weather balloon got trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus. Sheesh. Get your facts straight, you're making us look bad. If you keep it up, we'll have to revoke your access to the NWO cafeteria.
The problem is that when an attack succeeds because of something the government failed to do, everyone and his mother complains that the government should have "done something" to prevent it. Ofcourse, when the government tries to "do something", they get accused of unnecessarily meddling in peoples lives, and trying to institute a police state. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.
Also, while you make some decent points, it's obvious that you've never actually seen the full Ben Franklin quote, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to him while making your claims. So, for your benefit, I shall now reproduce the full quote, with the parts that you're missing highlighted for ease of understanding.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Also, I should note that this quote is falsely attributed to Franklin. While he was the first to publish this statement, he was not in fact the author of the publication in which it was contained.
I used to destroy botnets back when I actually had bots trying to infect me. It was a fun pastime if you were really bored. The thing is, I stopped using IRC, installed Firefox, and started using google mail, which has an awesome spam filter. That pretty much eliminated my access to new bots, and I'm not about to go out of my way to try and get some.
Mostly though, I'm absolutely shocked that many people are interested in seeing a camcorder recording of a movie. When I see a movie, I want a good picture quality -- not some friggin' hand-held recording of the movie.
Oh well, the vast majority of movies coming out nowadays are dreck anyway, and the ones I'm looking forward to, I'll go to/buy as soon as they're available to me.
Funny that you didn't see the connection there. If most of the movies coming out are dreck, it makes perfect sense to check out a low-quality camcorder recording before shelling out the $12 to go see it in theatres. Most of my friends do exactly that. Why spend money and subject yourself to a half-hour of forced commercials when you're not even sure if the movie will be any good?
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! As if the French could ever make it to the moon....
Well, if you REALLY want to make it American, you need to hand out free guns and bibles to all disembarking passengers.
Thanks, but on Slashdot, my comment can only get modded as "Troll" :)
I'd tell 'em "stick with windows".
Seriously...I'm a fairly computer literate guy. I started off with DOS back in '91 on an 8086, and progressed from there. I can program fairly well in multiple languages, I run several LAMP servers, I can even dig through raw disc sectors and hex and generally achieve the result I want. Yet linux still aggravates the shit outta me. For some things it's awesome - I have a mini SLAX disc that I carry with me everywhere, and it's come in handy many times, and runs without problem on every computer I've ever tried it on. But EVERY time I try to install linux on my home machine, something goes wrong. And usually it's the stupidest things possible, which just aggrivates me more.
Take last night for example. I heard that Ubuntu was a stable and reliable distro, with lots of good software available, and a solid future. I prefer KDE to Gnome though, so I got Kubuntu. I go to install it, and find out that the build in partitioning tool isn't able to do what I need it to do in order to create a swap partition. Alright, not a huge problem, but I do need to boot into windows to fix it. So, half an hour later I'm doing the actual install. Everything copies over ok, I reboot, and it's good to go.
Well, the first thing I notice is that Kubuntu is taking longer to boot up than my Windows XP installation. Not a good thing to see after hearing about how much more efficient linux is. Anyway, after waiting a good 3 minutes to log in, I finally have my brand new desktop. Yay! Now to test it out....navigate to my MP3 directory...double click a song....what the hell?? What do you mean "Amarok cannot play MP3's"???? Who ever heard of an audio player that can't play MP3's??? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of!
Alright, click the button to download new software. What's this? "Restricted Software"?? What the hell? Now it's asking for my password. Well...I guess I got nothing to lose. Type in my password. Oh. Now I have to restart Amarok. Ok, do that.
WHAT THE HELL?? What do you mean "Amarok cannot play MP3's"???? I JUST INSTALLED THE GOD-DAMN.......oh, forget it. Try again. Click download, type in password, restart Amarok, and....great. It crashed. Well aint that just peachy. How about instead of sending you a crash report I just reboot back into windows?
Now, I realize that "Amarok" isn't Linux any more than WMP is Windows. However, as I've said, every time I've tried to install linux, SOMETHING goes wrong either during the install process, or within the first 5 minutes of booting into the GUI. EVERY time I've installed Linux it's been nothing but crashes and incompatibilities which usually take hours to resolve. So now, the first problem I encounter usually has me giving up in disgust and booting into windows instead. Say what you want about MS products, but I NEVER have these kinds of issues with XP. And that's without even going into all the other advantages that windows has over linux, such as more software and more current drivers. Personally, the ONLY reason I keep trying Linux is because of all the "benefits" I keep hearing about from the loser fan-boys on here. So far it hasn't even come close to living up to the hype.
Environmental groups are in the business of capitalizing on doom-and-gloom scenarios. While you're right in that they could abandon the global warming business and focus on something else, that's like saying Microsoft could abandon MS Office, and focus on Windows instead. Sure, they could, but why would they want to? The more products they sell, the more money they can pull in.
Not to mention that a lot of these environmental groups have a lot of emotional/ideological investment in these issues. Maybe YOU are rational enough to be able to look at the research and say "oh, guess I was wrong, oh well", but most people are not. The environmental movement is notoriously bad at admitting that they're wrong - if you need an example, look at the continued opposition to nuclear power and modern incineration plants in the face of global warming and waste build-up. Environmental groups, just like animal welfare groups, and most special-interest groups, rarely base their actions and campaigns on science alone. Most of them are primarily based on an appeal to emotion and touchy-feely mumbo-jumbo, with a bit of science thrown in to try and give them some credibility amongst the sceptics. I'm not saying that they're all worthless, but they only employ science where it can benefit them. If the scientific facts contradict what these groups want, well, it doesn't matter, "because we have to stop the poor little baby seals from dying! look how cute and fuzzy they are! you heartless beast, how can you quote scientists at a time like this?? besides, they're probably all bought off by the evil capitalist nazi corporations anyway! patriarchal bastards. probably racist too...."
Well, imagine that you're a scientist being paid by the Sierra club to do global warming research, and you turn around and say to them "well, sorry guys, but it turns out all this global warming is actually just a product of increased solar activity". Or you're a scientist hired by greenpeace to research the dangers of nuclear reactors, and you turn around and tell them "gee guys, it looks like Nuclear power is actually the most viable and least polluting source of energy we have!". What do you think will happen?
Regardless of the fact that they never told you what conclusion they wanted, it seems likely that, were you to reach these conclusions, you would not be in their employ for very much longer. In fact it seems quite likely that your research would be quietly buried, and your funding revoked due to "budgetary constraints". So the end result is the same. If you work for an organizations which has a vested interest in reaching a specific conclusion, then you have a monetary incentive to reach the conclusions that they want. Period.
I only got excited about this series when I heard a rumour that they were going to make a movie called "Harry Secrets and the Chamber Pot". Unfortunately it turns out that I was being had. Ever since, I've been pretty disillusioned about the whole thing.
That doesn't surprise me too much. From what I've seen while traveling in the south, people there seem to try and act a lot more "righteous". The thing is, if anything I've had more luck with women in the southern states than in the northern ones :) I'm not going to try and pretend to understand it, but either way, you can't sum up all of the US with any one stereotype. You may as well try to stereotype a typical "european". It just doesn't work.
You've obviously never seen a bunch of scientists blowing shit up in a microwave.
The big problem with you yanks is that you can't seem to make up your mind about what a minor is in the first place. Age of consent laws vary from state to state but are generally 17-18. But you let them drive when they're 16. But they can't buy alcohol until they're 21. But they can use a gun as soon as they're old enough to hold it. None of it makes the least bit of sense. And you're not alone in that; here in Canada we're almost as bad. In the end though, how can you protect minors when you can't even figure out what a minor IS?
They also claim that only 35% of these abuses are reported, so unless I'm getting the math wrong, his would mean that something like 100% of females and 40% of males are molested before they're 18. Seems a little high, eh?
Seriously, how ignorant of history must one be to make such ridiculous statements? Are you aware that the world DIDN'T start in 1960?
Buddy, the US produces 95% of the porn that I see. There's no way in hell you're going to convince me that they're all a bunch of puritans.
Not "the rest of the world". Sales tax in Canada is never included in the price. I'm sure there are other countries where it's the same. Granted, it was inconvenient until I learned some basic math, but the other poster hit it exactly - when taxes are part of the advertised price, it becomes much easier to raise taxes.
Yep, right after they start charging 747 pilots $800, and bus drivers $2.25.
Anyway, the computer thing isn't open to discussion. Look here for a look into the North Korean school system. Granted the school being showcased is one for the children of the "elite", but one thing that Kim has taken seriously is education, and I would imagine that the rest of the schools would be similar, if not quite as extravagant.
This is my favourite quote from that page:
I think it's safe to assume that not many have personal computers, but they do have access to them in schools, and some businesses make use of them as well. It's safe to say that there are SOME computers in pretty much every country in the world, including the poorest ones.
The quote basically states the obvious - that essential liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly should not be sacrificed in order to secure temporary safety. An example of this would be making rallies illegal through the justification that someone attending a rally might get injured.
What the quote leaves unstated is that, conversely, non-essential liberties can and should be sacrificed in order to secure either a temporary or permanent increase in safety, and that giving up some essential liberties is necessary in order to ensure long-term safety. As an example of the former, think seatbelt laws. As an example of the latter, think incarceration of murderers. In both cases individuals are losing liberties, but neither case is an example of giving up essential liberties for temporary safety.
As to what your Attorney General thinks, I really don't care. If his quote wasn't taken out of context, then he's an idiot, but he's an idiot appointed by your democratically elected president, and confirmed by your democratically elected senate. He must be doing something right. Moreover, the guy doesn't get to make laws. He's basically an over-glorified lawyer. The only danger posed by his beliefs is that he'll incorrectly advise the president on a legal matter. However, any illegal actions by the president resulting from such bad advice would be caught and corrected by the senate and the supreme court, so the damage he can do is minimal.
No, actually, swamp gas from a weather balloon got trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus. Sheesh. Get your facts straight, you're making us look bad. If you keep it up, we'll have to revoke your access to the NWO cafeteria.
Also, while you make some decent points, it's obvious that you've never actually seen the full Ben Franklin quote, otherwise you wouldn't be referring to him while making your claims. So, for your benefit, I shall now reproduce the full quote, with the parts that you're missing highlighted for ease of understanding.
Also, I should note that this quote is falsely attributed to Franklin. While he was the first to publish this statement, he was not in fact the author of the publication in which it was contained.
NO CARRIER? Somehow I doubt anyone would want your slow-ass dialup connection as part of their bot-net.
I used to destroy botnets back when I actually had bots trying to infect me. It was a fun pastime if you were really bored. The thing is, I stopped using IRC, installed Firefox, and started using google mail, which has an awesome spam filter. That pretty much eliminated my access to new bots, and I'm not about to go out of my way to try and get some.
I would say that "movies" is the wrong word to use when describing what India produces.
Besides which, the entire Indian "movie" industry probably grosses less per year than Titanic did in the first week.