Words have always had different meanings in specialized contexts--that's why we have the term "jargon." I mean, hell, is a "disk" a flat circular object or a big hunk of metal and ceramic with moving arms inside?
"Liberal" and "conservative" are political jargon. (It's just that in the U.S. the two terms are flipped; theoretically American conservatism is neoliberalism.)
I'm well aware of what he says. What he advocates is a simply unviable business model for the majority of consumer software out there. Thus, rather frightening.
His disregard for the rights of creators (and his quite apparent desire to impose copyleft on everybody) is positively disgusting.
I would agree with you. RMS and his cohorts have long valued the freedom of code over the freedom of people. (RMS, at least, seems to think it's an absolute sin that people dare to make money off software; his essays are frightening things.)
The GPL isn't really free. I've licensed code under the LGPL before (never the GPL; I consider it entirely heinous) because I want a quid-pro-quo arrangement, but when I license my code as BSD it's most certainly not because I "want to take without giving back."
The death penalty is vengeance, and an irreconcilable one at that, in that nothing we can do could ever compensate the person for his loss, if we later learn that he was innocent.
All judicial punishments are irreconcilable. Money does not replace time served. This is a weak argument against it.
The condemned most certainly knows he is going to be killed. The punishment is death, not the execution.
The death penalty is a reasonable punishment for the highest of crimes; it is the forfeiture of the criminal's life to the State. There is no vengeance in the death penalty as it is carried out in the United States--we spend a preposterous amount of money to ensure that there is no pain and suffering (look it up: they use a three-drug course, the first of which is enough to put the condemned into a medically induced coma). There is a cathartic effect for the bereaved, but that is not its intent.
It could easily be argued that a life sentence is far more cruel than execution. Both are a transference of the entirety of the guilty's life to the State.
Christian? Try reading Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc.--there's precious little Christian morality in there.
I said nothing against the death penalty; in fact, for murderers I support it. There's no forgiveness in execution whatsoever. But torture? Torture is not justice. Torture is simply vengeance, a puerile giggling acting-upon of a reptile-brain hate. It is an appeal to the irrational, a cathartic for the emotional side which must never enter into the equation when justice is under consideration. Fools like you are the reason we have the judicial system we do.
The U.S. civil courts are in many cases irrational, with insane punitive damages. They are hardly a model system.
The object of justice is the dispassionate meting of a society-prescribed punishment. Vengeance and revenge never enter the equation; justice and vengeance are never the same.
#3: What this shows even more is how MS works. Despite their total lack of experience and ability, they enter the game like they own it, and get a bloody nose. But they come back - and get another beating. Just that they keep coming back. You can see that modus operandi in almost every area. Hardware, consoles, much of their non-core software. Usually, it doesn't matter much because they don't learn and keep on sucking, but sometimes along the way they get some wits, or acquire another company, and suddenly they matter (e.g. hardware) or the market is just so small that by sheer power they force their way in (e.g. consoles).
Chalking up the XBox 360's success to "forcing in by sheer power" is ignoring the fact that it's an extremely well-thought-out machine at a decent price point and with good software. The interoperability for hobbyist developers via XNA keeps that crowd interested (whereas the Wii and the PS3 try very hard to avoid letting hobbyists play--no, Linux on the PS3 doesn't count) and the Joe Averages have a lot of flashy games. The 360 is a solid home run, and Microsoft deserves the success they're having. The machine is so compelling that people don't even seem to care about RRODs (though those are becoming more and more infrequent, too).
Then your writing is bad, not my reading. It is reasonable for me to treat you as the original person unless you identify yourself as someone else joining the thread.
What, is not seeing "by Anonymous Coward" at the top of a post not enough of a clue for you?
But you do: your home page is called "The Centrist". That term means something specific in English, and it is defined by a one-dimensional view of US politics and defines precisely where you fit.
That's a preposterous notion and reveals more of your thinking than mine. A politically moderate position has very little to do with a one-dimensional line. At the very least there are two axes to the political spectrum (authoritarianism/libertarianism and leftist-command/rightist-freemarket) and quite possibly more depending on how you slice it. Personally, I'm socially libertarian and economically fairly conservative--that doesn't fit into your misguided single-axis (and yes, your, as you are the one trotting it out, I have nothing to do with it) political classification system. "The Centrist" is the name of the site because in aggregate we're aiming for an aggregated moderate view.
But if you looked at a single page of it, you'd know that. Good work at being epic, epic fail.
Unfortunately, stupidity like yours is not hilarious because it end up hurting people.
Riiiiight. Because I'm the one who's perpetuating the stupidity in this conversation, despite it coming out of your mouth. Shocking.
I didn't vote for Bush, jackass. And I wasn't the original AC. Learn to read.
As for my politics--well, that's kind of funny, seeing as how I don't define myself in terms of one-dimensional thinking. But assume such idiocy if you like; it doesn't do much except make me laugh at you.
So don't. The people that matter is the people who actually give a damn about their fellow human beings, and you will clearly never belong to that class of people.
"I don't agree with your stance on computer software so I don't give a damn about my fellow human beings."
They do not exist. So long as a card is Shader Model X.0 (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0) compliant, OpenGL and Direct3D can both talk to it.
There are cases where cards are optimized for Direct3D, but that's because the customers want more performant games and most developers use Direct3D because OpenGL is aging very poorly.
Slashdot Mirror
There's not much of a style that appeals to the left. I don't think it's doable.
In the marketplace? Yup.
Right-wing radio makes money, though. Left-wing radio doesn't. (Air America hasn't turned a profit since day one.)
Words have always had different meanings in specialized contexts--that's why we have the term "jargon." I mean, hell, is a "disk" a flat circular object or a big hunk of metal and ceramic with moving arms inside?
"Liberal" and "conservative" are political jargon. (It's just that in the U.S. the two terms are flipped; theoretically American conservatism is neoliberalism.)
So you're also in favor of the destruction of the book (fiction and nonfiction) industries, too?
XML! Everyone knows that XML is the answer! ...please don't hurt me, I'm only joking. :(
I'm well aware of what he says. What he advocates is a simply unviable business model for the majority of consumer software out there. Thus, rather frightening.
His disregard for the rights of creators (and his quite apparent desire to impose copyleft on everybody) is positively disgusting.
I would agree with you. RMS and his cohorts have long valued the freedom of code over the freedom of people. (RMS, at least, seems to think it's an absolute sin that people dare to make money off software; his essays are frightening things.)
You just want to take without giving back
I do? Is that why I license my code under BSD?
The GPL isn't really free. I've licensed code under the LGPL before (never the GPL; I consider it entirely heinous) because I want a quid-pro-quo arrangement, but when I license my code as BSD it's most certainly not because I "want to take without giving back."
Great job being clueless.
The death penalty is vengeance, and an irreconcilable one at that, in that nothing we can do could ever compensate the person for his loss, if we later learn that he was innocent.
All judicial punishments are irreconcilable. Money does not replace time served. This is a weak argument against it.
The condemned most certainly knows he is going to be killed. The punishment is death, not the execution.
The death penalty is a reasonable punishment for the highest of crimes; it is the forfeiture of the criminal's life to the State. There is no vengeance in the death penalty as it is carried out in the United States--we spend a preposterous amount of money to ensure that there is no pain and suffering (look it up: they use a three-drug course, the first of which is enough to put the condemned into a medically induced coma). There is a cathartic effect for the bereaved, but that is not its intent.
It could easily be argued that a life sentence is far more cruel than execution. Both are a transference of the entirety of the guilty's life to the State.
Christian? Try reading Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc.--there's precious little Christian morality in there.
I said nothing against the death penalty; in fact, for murderers I support it. There's no forgiveness in execution whatsoever. But torture? Torture is not justice. Torture is simply vengeance, a puerile giggling acting-upon of a reptile-brain hate. It is an appeal to the irrational, a cathartic for the emotional side which must never enter into the equation when justice is under consideration. Fools like you are the reason we have the judicial system we do.
The U.S. civil courts are in many cases irrational, with insane punitive damages. They are hardly a model system.
I hope that was a joke.
The object of justice is the dispassionate meting of a society-prescribed punishment. Vengeance and revenge never enter the equation; justice and vengeance are never the same.
How many of those Win2K machines have resellable keys? :P
That would be because they are not stupid.
#3:
What this shows even more is how MS works. Despite their total lack of experience and ability, they enter the game like they own it, and get a bloody nose. But they come back - and get another beating. Just that they keep coming back. You can see that modus operandi in almost every area. Hardware, consoles, much of their non-core software. Usually, it doesn't matter much because they don't learn and keep on sucking, but sometimes along the way they get some wits, or acquire another company, and suddenly they matter (e.g. hardware) or the market is just so small that by sheer power they force their way in (e.g. consoles).
Chalking up the XBox 360's success to "forcing in by sheer power" is ignoring the fact that it's an extremely well-thought-out machine at a decent price point and with good software. The interoperability for hobbyist developers via XNA keeps that crowd interested (whereas the Wii and the PS3 try very hard to avoid letting hobbyists play--no, Linux on the PS3 doesn't count) and the Joe Averages have a lot of flashy games. The 360 is a solid home run, and Microsoft deserves the success they're having. The machine is so compelling that people don't even seem to care about RRODs (though those are becoming more and more infrequent, too).
But the term "centrist" does.
Blissfully wrong. Never taken a political science course--or even read a book on modern political theory--in your life, have you?
Pathetic. The only one reducing political discourse to superficial associations here is you.
Then your writing is bad, not my reading. It is reasonable for me to treat you as the original person unless you identify yourself as someone else joining the thread.
What, is not seeing "by Anonymous Coward" at the top of a post not enough of a clue for you?
But you do: your home page is called "The Centrist". That term means something specific in English, and it is defined by a one-dimensional view of US politics and defines precisely where you fit.
That's a preposterous notion and reveals more of your thinking than mine. A politically moderate position has very little to do with a one-dimensional line. At the very least there are two axes to the political spectrum (authoritarianism/libertarianism and leftist-command/rightist-freemarket) and quite possibly more depending on how you slice it. Personally, I'm socially libertarian and economically fairly conservative--that doesn't fit into your misguided single-axis (and yes, your, as you are the one trotting it out, I have nothing to do with it) political classification system. "The Centrist" is the name of the site because in aggregate we're aiming for an aggregated moderate view.
But if you looked at a single page of it, you'd know that. Good work at being epic, epic fail.
Unfortunately, stupidity like yours is not hilarious because it end up hurting people.
Riiiiight. Because I'm the one who's perpetuating the stupidity in this conversation, despite it coming out of your mouth. Shocking.
Go grow up a bit before you post again.
I didn't vote for Bush, jackass. And I wasn't the original AC. Learn to read.
As for my politics--well, that's kind of funny, seeing as how I don't define myself in terms of one-dimensional thinking. But assume such idiocy if you like; it doesn't do much except make me laugh at you.
So very, very hilarious...
So don't. The people that matter is the people who actually give a damn about their fellow human beings, and you will clearly never belong to that class of people.
"I don't agree with your stance on computer software so I don't give a damn about my fellow human beings."
You, sir, are a fucking toolbag.
The difference is entirely minor and a splitting of hairs.
They do not exist. So long as a card is Shader Model X.0 (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0) compliant, OpenGL and Direct3D can both talk to it.
There are cases where cards are optimized for Direct3D, but that's because the customers want more performant games and most developers use Direct3D because OpenGL is aging very poorly.
Why? You capitalize Communism when referring to it as an ideology, why not Capitalism and Socialism?
Yes.