That doesn't really clarify anything. Obviously there is a difference in terminology, but is "svobodnovo" the equivalen of "open source"?
I ask because the context seems to indicate this is a cost saving measure, with little to nothing to do with open source software. Your translations seem to contradict the article.
"Nope. He got down-modded for posting the exact same thing with a closed tag... he got modded Redundant, because it was redundant...as well he should have."
No, AC we were discussing the "offtopic" mod I recieved for my first post, a very on topic question with a minor error.
Keep trying though, maybe you won't be wrong eventually.
I got basically the same idea that you did from reading the article, but then I asked myself, if it's "free" software they're after, what's to stop MS from just giving Windows to them for free on some kind of "educational deal".
The confusion between these two types of software is not trivial.
According to TFA, it is being mandated that "free" software be used, and open source isn't even mentioned (in the translated article, I don't speak russian, sorry).
"By the end of 2009, all school computers will be installed package of free software (PSPO). This is how transfers Prime-TASS, today announced Minister of Communications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Igor Shchyogolev at the plenary session Information Society and the modern technologies of information in the international exhibition InfoCom-2008."
"The Minister also noted that by 2010 it is expected that the number of computers in schools will reach a million. According to Schegoleva, after three years of school will be able to make a choice: pay royalties to use software products, buying them at their own expense, or go to the domestic free software."
Nothing in there about "open source" submitter, so which is it?
What was I thinking trying to correct my previous error, and make the discussion more pleasant for everyone by making my post actually make sense (yay I closed the tag!)
"It does if your reality consists of the belief that blasphemy and enciting others to blasphemy will literally send them to hell."
What harm? The belief that harm may/will occur is not the same as actually being harmed. I see no actual injury of any kind in your claim.
"That's one reason religion is dangerous. It's not based on a rational reality"
And this is where your point eats itself. How can you claim someone is being harmed by their own irrational belief? And you still have yet to demonstrate what "harm" is occurring.
And again, keep in mind, the belief that harm will occur is not harm, and it is that belief that is the cause of the problem, not actions that challenge that belief.
I think the "cultural relativism" mods are out modding in force today, no matter how wrong they are.
If you measure by the only useful metric there is, per capita charitable donations (which include the private donations your statistics do not) the US crushes everyone.
By miles.
So I guess when you said "Only if you calculate it the way most favourable to yourself." you were just foreshadowing your post?
The myth that Americans are stingy has been repeatedly debunked and only the most disingenuous individual could argue agans the fact that Americans win on total giving hands down.
I have yet to find an anti-virus solution that doesn't
a) slow my computer down b) continuously download crap c) works as advertised d) doesn't crash randomly e) I'm sure there's a few other things I forgot.
When it came down to it, I got so tired of the hassle I installed Ubuntu to dual boot, and only boot into windows when I need to use the work related software I have.
And no, I don't use any anti-virus, as I'm never in windows more than a few minutes anyway.
So you can keep your apparently useless anti-virus ratings, and your anti-virus software too.
This is just plain wrong. Regardless of the fact that you disagree, those of us without a point to prove realize the Swastika is by every intelligent definition "speech", especially when used in the context it is most associated with.
If you are indeed seriously arguing that a swastika isn't speech, I have to wonder why you think your opinion trumps hundreds of years of legal rulings, sociological debates, common sense, ans the commonly accepted definition of speech.
So tell me, why are you right and everyone else is wrong (and by the way, even in countries where it is banned, it is considered speech, it's just considered speech that needs censoring)?
See, if you were smarter you'd realize there is a difference between criticism and intolerance, and as such your entire response is an emotional tantrum that is moot.
A difference your original post, and your follow up defense of it, make clear you don't have the intellectual chops to understand.
Your opinion about what is relelvant is irrrelevant, I'm unclear on why you think anyonw would care about it.
And yes, I use whatever is fastest until something faster comes along, why are you confused about this?
Were you not following the thread where this was openly and clearly discussed? Your responses seem less than useful when coupled with the fact that you seem to have missed the main point of my discussion with OP.
I am one of many people in my circle of associates that has been waiting for improvements such as this.
I stopped using Firefox (and IE before it) specifically because the speed wasn't up to par, and am now happily using Opera.
Also, I don't really agree with your other point, it smacks of the same opensource arrogance that permeates discussions around here. Firefox is not so much better tha IE that your scenario actually makes sense and the assumption that people are ignorant or are forced to use IE is just wrong.
It's funny that your response to his statement is to quote a farce news show (you did know your witty title is actually a farce didn't you?) then express your intolerance and make a hypocritical ass of yourself.
Think about how pathetic you are that you think a comedy show is worth quoting for political purposes.
Unless you were trying to demonstrate that your opinion is a joke, I suppose that could be why you did it.
They make a very interesting product, but the price, combined with the low production numbers and quality control issues, meant the roadster at least would never be anything but a niche product.
Now that the money is drying up, any chance to transition from a dreamy eyed startup to a real manufacturer may be drying up with it.
You know very well what would happen if China tried to unload any real amount of US debt (which they can't simply collect on, as it's not that kind of debt).
You don't need enlightening, you need a slap in the mouth for trying a stupid troll like that.
That is not only wrong, it's such a clear distortion that one has to wonder if you're intentionally lying about it or just too ignorant to know better.
It is a medical procedure that is ALSO evidence.
And your post was NOT worth +5, secifically the ridiculous comparison between a medical procedure conducted after a rape and... well some phanton thing you alude to but don't spell out that you seem to think is equivalent in a murder investigation.
You're wrong about every point you made, which is no surprise as you seem to be too stupid to bother understanding what a rape kit is before making the totally incorrect assertion that it is "not a medical procedure".
You say the "US is paying in IOUs" but that's wrong. I suspect you say this because you do not understand economics very well and so can't explain what process is actually used.
I say you don't understand becuase you openly demonstrate as much with your point about collecting on US debt. You seem to think that they can just call it in and get paid, while you totally ignore that doing so would massively devalue the dollar, which is how the debt is paid, and thereby make the debt they own worth less.
The more they sell, the less it is worth, yet you're ignoring that, or don't seem to care that it effectively makes your doomsday proclamations impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't really clarify anything. Obviously there is a difference in terminology, but is "svobodnovo" the equivalen of "open source"?
I ask because the context seems to indicate this is a cost saving measure, with little to nothing to do with open source software. Your translations seem to contradict the article.
"Nope. He got down-modded for posting the exact same thing with a closed tag... he got modded Redundant, because it was redundant...as well he should have."
No, AC we were discussing the "offtopic" mod I recieved for my first post, a very on topic question with a minor error.
Keep trying though, maybe you won't be wrong eventually.
I got basically the same idea that you did from reading the article, but then I asked myself, if it's "free" software they're after, what's to stop MS from just giving Windows to them for free on some kind of "educational deal".
Seems like exactly the kind of thing MS would do.
The confusion between these two types of software is not trivial.
According to TFA, it is being mandated that "free" software be used, and open source isn't even mentioned (in the translated article, I don't speak russian, sorry).
"By the end of 2009, all school computers will be installed package of free software (PSPO). This is how transfers Prime-TASS, today announced Minister of Communications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Igor Shchyogolev at the plenary session Information Society and the modern technologies of information in the international exhibition InfoCom-2008."
"The Minister also noted that by 2010 it is expected that the number of computers in schools will reach a million. According to Schegoleva, after three years of school will be able to make a choice: pay royalties to use software products, buying them at their own expense, or go to the domestic free software."
Nothing in there about "open source" submitter, so which is it?
What was I thinking trying to correct my previous error, and make the discussion more pleasant for everyone by making my post actually make sense (yay I closed the tag!)
"In brief, it would seem that the sky is falling, as Microsoft's engineers seem to be really committed to making Samba fully interoperable with AD"
The bolded part is a euphemism for "disaster in progress".
Forgive my naivety, but isn't this a good thing (as much as MS collaboration can be)? Why is this a "sky is falling" situation?
"In brief, it would seem that the sky is falling, as Microsoft's engineers seem to be really committed to making Samba fully interoperable with AD"
The bolded part is a euphemism for "disaster in progress".
Forgive my naivety, but isn't this a good thing (as much as MS collaboration can be)? Why is this a "sky is falling" situation?
"It does if your reality consists of the belief that blasphemy and enciting others to blasphemy will literally send them to hell."
What harm? The belief that harm may/will occur is not the same as actually being harmed. I see no actual injury of any kind in your claim.
"That's one reason religion is dangerous. It's not based on a rational reality"
And this is where your point eats itself. How can you claim someone is being harmed by their own irrational belief? And you still have yet to demonstrate what "harm" is occurring.
And again, keep in mind, the belief that harm will occur is not harm, and it is that belief that is the cause of the problem, not actions that challenge that belief.
I think the "cultural relativism" mods are out modding in force today, no matter how wrong they are.
If you measure by the only useful metric there is, per capita charitable donations (which include the private donations your statistics do not) the US crushes everyone.
By miles.
So I guess when you said "Only if you calculate it the way most favourable to yourself." you were just foreshadowing your post?
http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf
The myth that Americans are stingy has been repeatedly debunked and only the most disingenuous individual could argue agans the fact that Americans win on total giving hands down.
I have yet to find an anti-virus solution that doesn't
a) slow my computer down
b) continuously download crap
c) works as advertised
d) doesn't crash randomly
e) I'm sure there's a few other things I forgot.
When it came down to it, I got so tired of the hassle I installed Ubuntu to dual boot, and only boot into windows when I need to use the work related software I have.
And no, I don't use any anti-virus, as I'm never in windows more than a few minutes anyway.
So you can keep your apparently useless anti-virus ratings, and your anti-virus software too.
"But neither is wearing a swastika"
This is just plain wrong. Regardless of the fact that you disagree, those of us without a point to prove realize the Swastika is by every intelligent definition "speech", especially when used in the context it is most associated with.
If you are indeed seriously arguing that a swastika isn't speech, I have to wonder why you think your opinion trumps hundreds of years of legal rulings, sociological debates, common sense, ans the commonly accepted definition of speech.
So tell me, why are you right and everyone else is wrong (and by the way, even in countries where it is banned, it is considered speech, it's just considered speech that needs censoring)?
A nipple on TV isn't speech, but on the occasions it has been speech (documentaries) it has been allowed.
Your argument would hold more water if it weren't completely disingenuous.
This really is the next logical step in climate science. Instead of being a society that reacts to climate changes, we are able to influence them.
That said, you can keep it. I'm just too worried the one climate we have will get screwed up by people with more ambition that foresight.
It seems he is implying open source solutions win on cost.
Has that ever been definitively proven (as much as such things can be)?
See, if you were smarter you'd realize there is a difference between criticism and intolerance, and as such your entire response is an emotional tantrum that is moot.
A difference your original post, and your follow up defense of it, make clear you don't have the intellectual chops to understand.
You fabricated a definition out of thin air then used it to craft an argument.
Then you cited the real definition, and attempted another end run around it by completely ignoring it and pretending it supports your point.
Why would I do anything but dismiss the opinion of someone who has to do disingenuous crap like that, like you for example?
Your opinion about what is relelvant is irrrelevant, I'm unclear on why you think anyonw would care about it.
And yes, I use whatever is fastest until something faster comes along, why are you confused about this?
Were you not following the thread where this was openly and clearly discussed? Your responses seem less than useful when coupled with the fact that you seem to have missed the main point of my discussion with OP.
Great, completely irrelevant to any of my points, but great.
Now I know it must have bothered you being oited as an intolerant hypocrite, you're posting incoherent babble in your own defense.
Um, stipulating that people around the world are generally liberal, if true, means there would be no bias as it would actually be representative.
And your definition of liberal is crafted out of thion air, wrong, and ridiculous.
Nice try at a troll though.
I am one of many people in my circle of associates that has been waiting for improvements such as this.
I stopped using Firefox (and IE before it) specifically because the speed wasn't up to par, and am now happily using Opera.
Also, I don't really agree with your other point, it smacks of the same opensource arrogance that permeates discussions around here. Firefox is not so much better tha IE that your scenario actually makes sense and the assumption that people are ignorant or are forced to use IE is just wrong.
It's funny that your response to his statement is to quote a farce news show (you did know your witty title is actually a farce didn't you?) then express your intolerance and make a hypocritical ass of yourself.
Think about how pathetic you are that you think a comedy show is worth quoting for political purposes.
Unless you were trying to demonstrate that your opinion is a joke, I suppose that could be why you did it.
They make a very interesting product, but the price, combined with the low production numbers and quality control issues, meant the roadster at least would never be anything but a niche product.
Now that the money is drying up, any chance to transition from a dreamy eyed startup to a real manufacturer may be drying up with it.
Are you realy going to troll me with that trash?
You know very well what would happen if China tried to unload any real amount of US debt (which they can't simply collect on, as it's not that kind of debt).
You don't need enlightening, you need a slap in the mouth for trying a stupid troll like that.
A rape kit is "not a medical procedure"?
That is not only wrong, it's such a clear distortion that one has to wonder if you're intentionally lying about it or just too ignorant to know better.
It is a medical procedure that is ALSO evidence.
And your post was NOT worth +5, secifically the ridiculous comparison between a medical procedure conducted after a rape and ... well some phanton thing you alude to but don't spell out that you seem to think is equivalent in a murder investigation.
You're wrong about every point you made, which is no surprise as you seem to be too stupid to bother understanding what a rape kit is before making the totally incorrect assertion that it is "not a medical procedure".
You say the "US is paying in IOUs" but that's wrong. I suspect you say this because you do not understand economics very well and so can't explain what process is actually used.
I say you don't understand becuase you openly demonstrate as much with your point about collecting on US debt. You seem to think that they can just call it in and get paid, while you totally ignore that doing so would massively devalue the dollar, which is how the debt is paid, and thereby make the debt they own worth less.
The more they sell, the less it is worth, yet you're ignoring that, or don't seem to care that it effectively makes your doomsday proclamations impossible.