The first FTP standard was RFC 114, published in April 1971, before TCP and IP even existed. This standard defined the basic commands of the protocol and the formal means by which devises communicate using it. At this time the predecessor of TCP (called simply the Network Control Protocol or NCP) was used for conveying network traffic. There was no Internet back then. Its precursor, the ARPAnet, was tiny, consisting of only a small group of development computers.
A number of subsequent RFCs refined the operation of this early version of FTP, with revisions published as RFC 172 in June 1971 and RFC 265 in November 1971. The first major revision was RFC 354, July 1972, which for the first time contained a description of the overall communication model used by modern TCP, and details on many of the current features of the protocol. In subsequent months many additional RFCs were published, defining features for FTP or raising issues with it. RFC 542, August 1973, the FTP specification looks remarkably similar to the one we use today, over three decades later, except that it was still defined to run over NCP.
After a number of subsequent RFCs to define and discuss changes, the formal standard for modern FTP was published in RFC 765, File Transfer Protocol Specification, June 1980. This was the first standard to define FTP operation over modern TCP/IP, and was created at around the same time as the other primary defining standards for TCP/IP.
RFC 959, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), was published in October 1985 and made some revisions to RFC 765, including the addition of several new commands, and is now the base specification for FTP. Since that time a number of other standards have been published that define extensions to FTP, better security measures and other features. (Some of these are discussed in the general operation section in the appropriate places.)
Last time I used windows their was an unmount option for all removable media in the system tray. As far as I understand you are not guaranteed that all your data has been written until you properly unmount as is the case in Linux.
Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.
People that are against embryonic stem cell research are also against IVF. The Catholic Church is firmly against such things as am I. I not sure about protests but people are against it. Here are some quotes from Donum Vitae on the matter.
Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material."
In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenseless human beings.
Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person."[50]
These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case," i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.
Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.
Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.
How can you condone the death penalty? Innocent people have been jailed, and innocent people have been killed. It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. Being pro-choice and pro-death penalty is more hypocritical than a catholic voting for a pro-choice democrat.
I did not say I was pro death penalty. I am not in fact. I said it is the lesser evil if it is justly applied. If it is unjustly applied then they are equally evil because both the unborn child and the innocent you speak of have a right to life.
The Church historically has not been against the death penalty when justly applied and even today can be used in extreme situations. On the other hand abortion is always a grave sin and anyone who has an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Church which is the highest punishment the Church can give. So I would say the Catholic voting for the pro choice politician is the greater hypocrite. I have included some excerpts below from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which clearly show my points.
And I support a woman's right to choose, as do many of my catholic friends. Now just because we are pro-choice doesn't mean that we would encourage people to get an abortion. However we recognize that just because our faith is against abortions, it doesn't mean it should be imposed upon EVERYONE. I see no problem with valuing your religion but not trying to force your beliefs on others. I think this is more in line with the true spirit of democracy.
As for you argument of keeping my "religion" out of politics then I can could say the same thing about your belief that the death penalty is wrong. Why should a women have the choice to slay her unborn child but the state not have the same choice to slay their citizens? Is it not the same choice? Does not the state have the greater right to decide if the will of the people is to kill criminals or innocents for that matter if they are unwanted by the majority? Are you not imposing your ideals on the majority?
I for one think we have a duty to help others to be better people and to be good both in our personal lives and in our political lives. I think the state and the voters have a duty to enforce justice and to protect the rights of the weak as well as the strong. That includes the the unborn, the elderly, the poor, the unwanted, and the guilty they all deserve to be treated as human beings, to be loved, to live, and to be protected by the state. A democracy is not just about the majority's will it is not mob rule. The people are not always right if they where then their never would have been segregation, slavery, or any of the other many sins of the American people and the state. Abortion is just another of a long lines of evils this nation has condoned and encouraged and I hope that we will over come this evil as we have the ones of the past. That will not happen until we change the hearts and minds of the majority which we as Catholics must try to do.
Death Penalty 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.
They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.
They may not be hypocrites but they are not really catholics either. They are protestants because they have put their own individual beliefs above the infallible teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church. If you are a catholic you have to accept the dogma of the Church if you do not you are not a true Catholic.
First of all killing an innocent child is clearly the far greater evil compared to killing a guilty man. The death penalty is just and not immoral under certain circumstances. The problem is that it is not merciful which is why the Church has prohibited it.
Less government welfare is not necessarily against Church teaching as long as it is balanced with greater personal giving and the state is helping to encourage people to be charitable and helping various charity's which the Republicans do. Republicans just have a different view has how to best help the poor. Democrats think the state should do it the Republicans think it is the individuals responsibility.
They simply believe that access to some information is better than access to no information.
No they are a business and they decided to make money instead of support a political cause namely freedom. This is no different than what Ford or many other American companies did before WWII with the Russians. American companies helped Stalin a great deal in building the Soviet Union's industrial base. Which had the plus of helping them win the war again the Germans but the negative of making them more of a threat to the world. Google and other American companies may well be helping to form the next communist super power.
What I'd like to see in a review like this is what throughput can the SAMBA server give among multiple clients, how many connections the bit-torrent client can handle before melting, what types of printers it can serve (Jetdirect, USB, real Centronics, etc)... you know, useful information I can use to make an informed decision.
Oh well...
I use an older 100 MHz Pentium with 128 MB of ram and 200 GB's of hard drive space for downloading torrents, p2p stuff, etc. It has has no problem maxing out my broadband connection's bandwidth. It has no problem streaming high quality divx video via NFS to client machines though I have not tried multiple clients. I doubt based on my experience that the CPU would be the limiting factor for the ASUS. The limiting factor should be the hard drive.
The issue is: KNOWING WHAT WE ARE BUYING SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
That is all. That is the only issue. It is an issue of the freedom to choose, and the knowledge required to make that choice.
How can someone that does not have a PhD in genetics possibly make a rational informed decision about this issue? Any education short of that will just lead to an emotional decision.
It's really a catch-22 situation. If MS doesn't provide a way for AV programs to load directly into the kernel, they aren't as effective.... on the other hand, if they do provide a way, that way can (and will) be leaked to that viruses and rootkits use it as well rendering the new security measures useless.
Well their is a third way run the anti-virus/Trojan/root-kit software from a boot CD that solves all the problems.
I agree, this sort of system software IS going to break with each security rev of Windows. It only stands to reason that breaking viruses, which is what MS wants to do, is likely to break anti-virus software as well.
I don't see the problem. Why can't the anti-virus software just be ran as the Administrator user? In Linux you run ClamAV as root and tripwire as root and if you are really security conscious you run them off a boot CD. Why can not the Windows anti-virus people do the same thing with Vista? What is it about Vista that would prevent this?
I have been tempted for a while to start looking at Linux, and that is all this computer will be for. I would like a distro where you use command prompts as little as possible.
I would also recommended Ubunutu for a beginner. Though I would like to say that one of Linux's best features is it's powerful command line and scripting abilities. Though certainly you would not want to be forced to use the command line at first I think it would definitely benefit most serious computer users to learn it. There are plenty of good books and howto's out there on shell programming and the Linux/Unix CLI. Unix power tools is a great one.
One thing I really miss about the earlier days of computing is that when a kid got a computer is was pretty much expected that they would learn to program in basic. Now a days that is just not the case. The CLI and scripting is not really any harder than programming in basic and I think Linux people really should try to help encourage beginners to learn the shell.
Re:EULA - Weapons of Mass Destruction??
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 1
They fixed the licence it is much better now. The Licence is now considered Free software see:
Without that moral consensus, how do we justify fighting back? Maybe you want to live in a world were "being in the right" means having the biggest gun. Not a world I want to live in.
That was not my point nor my view though that is largely the reality especially in international politics. I think their is an absolute right and wrong independent of any moral consensus or the whim's of a certain people, government, or period of time. My point was that if you rely on moral consensus them you can easily justify just about anything be it the military campaigns of Adolf Hitler or Jihadism.
Do you imagine that the Founders just woke up one day and said, "Fuck this British Empire shit, let's start our own country!" If they had, then yeah, they'd be pretty immoral. Worse, they'd be stupid.
No I do not. Nor do I think that Bin Laden and his followers woke up one day and said fuck America lets attack them I am sure he had his reasons valid or not.
And it talks about how it's wrong to overthrow established authority for "light and transient cause". Far from considering revolution their fundamental right, the founders considered it to be a nasty last resort, justified only by the extreme abuses of the British crown.
I agree war is not the first option. I never said it was.
Like all fascists, Osama likes to portray himself and his followers as victims. But that's really pretty secondary. From a moral point of view, the place he steps over the line is when he refuses to accept the moral norms of those around him.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you point but you say that Osama Bin Laden's actions are wrong because they do not match the moral norms of the people around him? Are you implying that society dictates morality? If so which society has that right? America? The EU Nations? Or do you mean that each nation decides it's own morality in which case do you think that Hitler was morally justified because he was elected by the German people and generally supported by them at the time? In that case is not Bin Laden also justified since many Muslims do too variying degrees suport his cause? From my point of view Bin Laden is morally wrong because he kills innocent civilians not because Americans disagrees with his actions or beliefs.
And if you take the attitude that every American is his own private army, and doesn't have to take orders from anybody, you're doing exactly the same thing. You're even justifying it the same way, by claiming that you're "persecuted". Your goals may be different, but the moral result is the same.
So the founding fathers were immoral by your logic and should have left England alone?
3. Some applications, when installed, seem to be "everywhere"... they aren't just single little entities.
That was never a DOS problem. DOS and very early Windows programs installed in their own subdirectories. Removing a program was a simple matter of removing the subdirectory. No need for fancy uninstallers, etc.
4. There are thousands upon thousands of files, where you don't know what they do.
Well to a novice DOS user the number of files would be overwhelming but it was certainly feasible to learn all the commands and what each file did. DOS was a very simple system. Windows on the other hand is hideously complex and I doubt anyone understands exactly what each and every file does on their machine.
2. When my computer boots I see all these grey characters, bios, IDE info, etc. etc.
Personally I like the startup messages they can be useful at times. On older systems like say an IBM PC AT or XT you actually could get a manual that would list what all the BIOS errors meant. Too bad documentation for PC sucks so bad today:(
1. There are files everywhere in a root drive called C:\.
Well I hope they do not change that I still like using a DOS shell for file management there is nothing in windows that can beat wildcards. Though I am using SFU more and more for that:)
Wow. Your definition of appropriate 9-1-1 use is pretty limited. Had I called the "non-emergency" number, perhaps there would have been more than a short fight (a fight did break out last night between the time I called and the police showed up) before someone got to me and eventually sent out a cruiser.
Well is it really the police's/neighbor's job to stop every fist fight? I mean is modern society so neutered that a couple of guys can not engage in a honest fist fight? It was not that long ago people use to dual in this county legally. Not that I think people should settle things with dueling or with thier fists but this is/was a free country and I think people should be aloud to decide on their own if they need/want the help of the police or their local neighborhood pro-active crime stoppers.
As for husbands and wives fighting, again, what's the advantage of waiting until you hear a scream for help?
Maybe giving people the benefit of the doubt? I kind of thought America was about assuming innocence not guilt.
Further, if you think that husbands and wives throwing and breaking things in their house during an argument is normal behavior, then I feel bad for your family. That sort of behavior is violent and I'd much rather have an officer arrive before someone gets a shiner (or much worse) than after. If the couple doesn't like that, then they're living in the wrong neighborhood. Perhaps moving next door to someone like you would be a good option...
Well normal behavior is rather subjective and varies alot among different times and cultures. Now breaking things is not good and is of course unnecessary but it is not illegal neither is fighting, screaming, etc. so I really do not see the point of a someone who is not involved in calling the police. The police are not her to prevent every crime they can not nor should they even try that is unamerican. People should be given the benefit of the doubt we should not assume people are breaking the law.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Well they sound nice in theory and I would hope/expect if my neighbor saw someone shooting me or beaking into my house to call the police. If that is what they are doing then great they are being good neighbors.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken?
Well first I think using 911 for anything other than a major emergency is an abuse of the 911 service. You really should have just contacted the police via thier non-emergency number. Now I personally think what you did was wrong and unnecessary though I think you heart was in the right place. If you had heard screams for help, gun shots, etc. then you should of course have called the police but if all you heard was some verbal fighting then I really do not see the point in wasting the police's time on a trival matter.
Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...
Well I would not have called the police. Couples fight and they sometimes throw things that is there business not yours. If one of them is really in trouble they can call the police themselves or run to a neighbor, etc. they do not need a neighbor watching them to keep them safe. Of course if you knew that the husband had a history of wife abuse, etc. then I could see you being more concerned/justified in your actions but I doubt that was the case from what you have said. Unless you really witness a crime you should not be calling the police and especially not 911!
People think the laws against silly things like noise pollution, parking in fire lanes, etc. are optional, but hey...Not liking a law doesn't excuse you from following it.
I'm sure the pothead I used to live under a couple years ago thought I was "total scum of the earth" after I called the police on his numerous violations of a town noise ordinance, and eventually got him evicted.
I agree people should of course try their best to follow the law. On the other hand I think people should only use the police/court system as a last resort for solving what are essentially private affairs such as you mentioned about the noise issue you had with your pothead neighbor. I would hope before calling the police you had the courtesy of asking you neighbor to be more quite/considerate of your needs, etc. and if that failed followed that up with you landlord. Really that should have been sufficient but if he was really obstinate than I could understand you need to call the police if it was effecting your sleep, work, etc. I am assuming from you comment that you probably did try to resolve the issue on your own but I think must people would not especially the busybody types of the world and that is what really upsets me.
IMO if someone goes around turning people in for stupid things they are total scum of the earth. Maybe instead of looking at other peoples faults they should look at their own. I think the only time one should report people is when it is something that is gravely immoral (i.e, murder, rape, etc.) or dangerous to others, etc.
The problem with that argument is simply this: Would either Bell or the alleged other guy have worked so hard to invent the telephone if they didn't have an expectation of being able to patent it and make some money off of it before somebody else made a generic version?
What about Einstein or Maxwell or any great Physicist or Mathematician that has spent years of their lives on creating great theories? They never see any compensation from the many engineers that apply their equations to almost every thing we use. Why did not Maxwell get a 95 five year patent on his equations and why did not he and his family derive royalties from every electrical device made from 1864 till 1959? Why did not Einstein and his family make royalties off all the aerospace space companies that use relativity when designing thier products?
The idea of patents to me seems as though it is very unfairly and narrowly applied. Many people that make great contributions to society never benefit from it but people that make minor uses and sometimes not so minor uses of far greater mans ideas make great fortunes with patents. This too me seems illogical and unfair. No invention comes from nothing it is based on the greatness of others and I see no reason why a few smart people that are fortunate enough to make something that people value should be so greatly rewarded when the truly brilliant people make very little.
That's great, but what if you want something usable? Debian's packages are so old that it's mostly irrelevant in situations where you need to interoperate with any windows technology.
Try backports.org they have many updated packages for Debian.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean the current generation of FTP was created in 1985 not 1995.
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959
But that was not the first RFC published on FTP the first was in 1971
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc114
Here is a history of FTP:
The first FTP standard was RFC 114, published in April 1971, before TCP and IP even existed. This standard defined the basic commands of the protocol and the formal means by which devises communicate using it. At this time the predecessor of TCP (called simply the Network Control Protocol or NCP) was used for conveying network traffic. There was no Internet back then. Its precursor, the ARPAnet, was tiny, consisting of only a small group of development computers.
A number of subsequent RFCs refined the operation of this early version of FTP, with revisions published as RFC 172 in June 1971 and RFC 265 in November 1971. The first major revision was RFC 354, July 1972, which for the first time contained a description of the overall communication model used by modern TCP, and details on many of the current features of the protocol. In subsequent months many additional RFCs were published, defining features for FTP or raising issues with it. RFC 542, August 1973, the FTP specification looks remarkably similar to the one we use today, over three decades later, except that it was still defined to run over NCP.
After a number of subsequent RFCs to define and discuss changes, the formal standard for modern FTP was published in RFC 765, File Transfer Protocol Specification, June 1980. This was the first standard to define FTP operation over modern TCP/IP, and was created at around the same time as the other primary defining standards for TCP/IP.
RFC 959, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), was published in October 1985 and made some revisions to RFC 765, including the addition of several new commands, and is now the base specification for FTP. Since that time a number of other standards have been published that define extensions to FTP, better security measures and other features. (Some of these are discussed in the general operation section in the appropriate places.)
http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/gf_guide1.htm
Last time I used windows their was an unmount option for all removable media in the system tray. As far as I understand you are not guaranteed that all your data has been written until you properly unmount as is the case in Linux.
Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.
People that are against embryonic stem cell research are also against IVF. The Catholic Church is firmly against such things as am I. I not sure about protests but people are against it. Here are some quotes from Donum Vitae on the matter.
Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material."
In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenseless human beings.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part1.htm
Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person."[50]
These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case," i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.
Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.
Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm
How can you condone the death penalty? Innocent people have been jailed, and innocent people have been killed. It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. Being pro-choice and pro-death penalty is more hypocritical than a catholic voting for a pro-choice democrat.
I did not say I was pro death penalty. I am not in fact. I said it is the lesser evil if it is justly applied. If it is unjustly applied then they are equally evil because both the unborn child and the innocent you speak of have a right to life.
The Church historically has not been against the death penalty when justly applied and even today can be used in extreme situations. On the other hand abortion is always a grave sin and anyone who has an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Church which is the highest punishment the Church can give. So I would say the Catholic voting for the pro choice politician is the greater hypocrite. I have included some excerpts below from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which clearly show my points.
And I support a woman's right to choose, as do many of my catholic friends. Now just because we are pro-choice doesn't mean that we would encourage people to get an abortion. However we recognize that just because our faith is against abortions, it doesn't mean it should be imposed upon EVERYONE. I see no problem with valuing your religion but not trying to force your beliefs on others. I think this is more in line with the true spirit of democracy.
As for you argument of keeping my "religion" out of politics then I can could say the same thing about your belief that the death penalty is wrong. Why should a women have the choice to slay her unborn child but the state not have the same choice to slay their citizens? Is it not the same choice? Does not the state have the greater right to decide if the will of the people is to kill criminals or innocents for that matter if they are unwanted by the majority? Are you not imposing your ideals on the majority?
I for one think we have a duty to help others to be better people and to be good both in our personal lives and in our political lives. I think the state and the voters have a duty to enforce justice and to protect the rights of the weak as well as the strong. That includes the the unborn, the elderly, the poor, the unwanted, and the guilty they all deserve to be treated as human beings, to be loved, to live, and to be protected by the state. A democracy is not just about the majority's will it is not mob rule. The people are not always right if they where then their never would have been segregation, slavery, or any of the other many sins of the American people and the state. Abortion is just another of a long lines of evils this nation has condoned and encouraged and I hope that we will over come this evil as we have the ones of the past. That will not happen until we change the hearts and minds of the majority which we as Catholics must try to do.
Death Penalty
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.
http://
They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.
They may not be hypocrites but they are not really catholics either. They are protestants because they have put their own individual beliefs above the infallible teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church. If you are a catholic you have to accept the dogma of the Church if you do not you are not a true Catholic.
First of all killing an innocent child is clearly the far greater evil compared to killing a guilty man. The death penalty is just and not immoral under certain circumstances. The problem is that it is not merciful which is why the Church has prohibited it.
Less government welfare is not necessarily against Church teaching as long as it is balanced with greater personal giving and the state is helping to encourage people to be charitable and helping various charity's which the Republicans do. Republicans just have a different view has how to best help the poor. Democrats think the state should do it the Republicans think it is the individuals responsibility.
From Win95 days... probably the first wooden computer... http://lapage.com/kunst/ [lapage.com] (Archive of the original site.)
Definitely not the first. The oldest I know of is the Apple I from 1976.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I
They simply believe that access to some information is better than access to no information.
No they are a business and they decided to make money instead of support a political cause namely freedom. This is no different than what Ford or many other American companies did before WWII with the Russians. American companies helped Stalin a great deal in building the Soviet Union's industrial base. Which had the plus of helping them win the war again the Germans but the negative of making them more of a threat to the world. Google and other American companies may well be helping to form the next communist super power.
What I'd like to see in a review like this is what throughput can the SAMBA server give among multiple clients, how many connections the bit-torrent client can handle before melting, what types of printers it can serve (Jetdirect, USB, real Centronics, etc)... you know, useful information I can use to make an informed decision.
Oh well...
I use an older 100 MHz Pentium with 128 MB of ram and 200 GB's of hard drive space for downloading torrents, p2p stuff, etc. It has has no problem maxing out my broadband connection's bandwidth. It has no problem streaming high quality divx video via NFS to client machines though I have not tried multiple clients. I doubt based on my experience that the CPU would be the limiting factor for the ASUS. The limiting factor should be the hard drive.
The issue is: KNOWING WHAT WE ARE BUYING SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
That is all. That is the only issue. It is an issue of the freedom to choose, and the knowledge required to make that choice.
How can someone that does not have a PhD in genetics possibly make a rational informed decision about this issue? Any education short of that will just lead to an emotional decision.
It's really a catch-22 situation. If MS doesn't provide a way for AV programs to load directly into the kernel, they aren't as effective.... on the other hand, if they do provide a way, that way can (and will) be leaked to that viruses and rootkits use it as well rendering the new security measures useless.
Well their is a third way run the anti-virus/Trojan/root-kit software from a boot CD that solves all the problems.
I agree, this sort of system software IS going to break with each security rev of Windows. It only stands to reason that breaking viruses, which is what MS wants to do, is likely to break anti-virus software as well.
I don't see the problem. Why can't the anti-virus software just be ran as the Administrator user? In Linux you run ClamAV as root and tripwire as root and if you are really security conscious you run them off a boot CD. Why can not the Windows anti-virus people do the same thing with Vista? What is it about Vista that would prevent this?
I have been tempted for a while to start looking at Linux, and that is all this computer will be for. I would like a distro where you use command prompts as little as possible.
I would also recommended Ubunutu for a beginner. Though I would like to say that one of Linux's best features is it's powerful command line and scripting abilities. Though certainly you would not want to be forced to use the command line at first I think it would definitely benefit most serious computer users to learn it. There are plenty of good books and howto's out there on shell programming and the Linux/Unix CLI. Unix power tools is a great one.
One thing I really miss about the earlier days of computing is that when a kid got a computer is was pretty much expected that they would learn to program in basic. Now a days that is just not the case. The CLI and scripting is not really any harder than programming in basic and I think Linux people really should try to help encourage beginners to learn the shell.
They fixed the licence it is much better now. The Licence is now considered Free software see:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html
Without that moral consensus, how do we justify fighting back? Maybe you want to live in a world were "being in the right" means having the biggest gun. Not a world I want to live in.
That was not my point nor my view though that is largely the reality especially in international politics. I think their is an absolute right and wrong independent of any moral consensus or the whim's of a certain people, government, or period of time. My point was that if you rely on moral consensus them you can easily justify just about anything be it the military campaigns of Adolf Hitler or Jihadism.
Do you imagine that the Founders just woke up one day and said, "Fuck this British Empire shit, let's start our own country!" If they had, then yeah, they'd be pretty immoral. Worse, they'd be stupid.
No I do not. Nor do I think that Bin Laden and his followers woke up one day and said fuck America lets attack them I am sure he had his reasons valid or not.
And it talks about how it's wrong to overthrow established authority for "light and transient cause". Far from considering revolution their fundamental right, the founders considered it to be a nasty last resort, justified only by the extreme abuses of the British crown.
I agree war is not the first option. I never said it was.
Like all fascists, Osama likes to portray himself and his followers as victims. But that's really pretty secondary. From a moral point of view, the place he steps over the line is when he refuses to accept the moral norms of those around him.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you point but you say that Osama Bin Laden's actions are wrong because they do not match the moral norms of the people around him? Are you implying that society dictates morality? If so which society has that right? America? The EU Nations? Or do you mean that each nation decides it's own morality in which case do you think that Hitler was morally justified because he was elected by the German people and generally supported by them at the time? In that case is not Bin Laden also justified since many Muslims do too variying degrees suport his cause? From my point of view Bin Laden is morally wrong because he kills innocent civilians not because Americans disagrees with his actions or beliefs.
And if you take the attitude that every American is his own private army, and doesn't have to take orders from anybody, you're doing exactly the same thing. You're even justifying it the same way, by claiming that you're "persecuted". Your goals may be different, but the moral result is the same.
So the founding fathers were immoral by your logic and should have left England alone?
3. Some applications, when installed, seem to be "everywhere"... they aren't just single little entities.
:(
:)
That was never a DOS problem. DOS and very early Windows programs installed in their own subdirectories. Removing a program was a simple matter of removing the subdirectory. No need for fancy uninstallers, etc.
4. There are thousands upon thousands of files, where you don't know what they do.
Well to a novice DOS user the number of files would be overwhelming but it was certainly feasible to learn all the commands and what each file did. DOS was a very simple system. Windows on the other hand is hideously complex and I doubt anyone understands exactly what each and every file does on their machine.
2. When my computer boots I see all these grey characters, bios, IDE info, etc. etc.
Personally I like the startup messages they can be useful at times. On older systems like say an IBM PC AT or XT you actually could get a manual that would list what all the BIOS errors meant. Too bad documentation for PC sucks so bad today
1. There are files everywhere in a root drive called C:\.
Well I hope they do not change that I still like using a DOS shell for file management there is nothing in windows that can beat wildcards. Though I am using SFU more and more for that
Wow. Your definition of appropriate 9-1-1 use is pretty limited. Had I called the "non-emergency" number, perhaps there would have been more than a short fight (a fight did break out last night between the time I called and the police showed up) before someone got to me and eventually sent out a cruiser.
Well is it really the police's/neighbor's job to stop every fist fight? I mean is modern society so neutered that a couple of guys can not engage in a honest fist fight? It was not that long ago people use to dual in this county legally. Not that I think people should settle things with dueling or with thier fists but this is/was a free country and I think people should be aloud to decide on their own if they need/want the help of the police or their local neighborhood pro-active crime stoppers.
As for husbands and wives fighting, again, what's the advantage of waiting until you hear a scream for help?
Maybe giving people the benefit of the doubt? I kind of thought America was about assuming innocence not guilt.
Further, if you think that husbands and wives throwing and breaking things in their house during an argument is normal behavior, then I feel bad for your family. That sort of behavior is violent and I'd much rather have an officer arrive before someone gets a shiner (or much worse) than after. If the couple doesn't like that, then they're living in the wrong neighborhood. Perhaps moving next door to someone like you would be a good option...
Well normal behavior is rather subjective and varies alot among different times and cultures. Now breaking things is not good and is of course unnecessary but it is not illegal neither is fighting, screaming, etc. so I really do not see the point of a someone who is not involved in calling the police. The police are not her to prevent every crime they can not nor should they even try that is unamerican. People should be given the benefit of the doubt we should not assume people are breaking the law.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Well they sound nice in theory and I would hope/expect if my neighbor saw someone shooting me or beaking into my house to call the police. If that is what they are doing then great they are being good neighbors.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken?
Well first I think using 911 for anything other than a major emergency is an abuse of the 911 service. You really should have just contacted the police via thier non-emergency number. Now I personally think what you did was wrong and unnecessary though I think you heart was in the right place. If you had heard screams for help, gun shots, etc. then you should of course have called the police but if all you heard was some verbal fighting then I really do not see the point in wasting the police's time on a trival matter.
Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...
Well I would not have called the police. Couples fight and they sometimes throw things that is there business not yours. If one of them is really in trouble they can call the police themselves or run to a neighbor, etc. they do not need a neighbor watching them to keep them safe. Of course if you knew that the husband had a history of wife abuse, etc. then I could see you being more concerned/justified in your actions but I doubt that was the case from what you have said. Unless you really witness a crime you should not be calling the police and especially not 911!
People think the laws against silly things like noise pollution, parking in fire lanes, etc. are optional, but hey...Not liking a law doesn't excuse you from following it.
I'm sure the pothead I used to live under a couple years ago thought I was "total scum of the earth" after I called the police on his numerous violations of a town noise ordinance, and eventually got him evicted.
I agree people should of course try their best to follow the law. On the other hand I think people should only use the police/court system as a last resort for solving what are essentially private affairs such as you mentioned about the noise issue you had with your pothead neighbor. I would hope before calling the police you had the courtesy of asking you neighbor to be more quite/considerate of your needs, etc. and if that failed followed that up with you landlord. Really that should have been sufficient but if he was really obstinate than I could understand you need to call the police if it was effecting your sleep, work, etc. I am assuming from you comment that you probably did try to resolve the issue on your own but I think must people would not especially the busybody types of the world and that is what really upsets me.
IMO if someone goes around turning people in for stupid things they are total scum of the earth. Maybe instead of looking at other peoples faults they should look at their own. I think the only time one should report people is when it is something that is gravely immoral (i.e, murder, rape, etc.) or dangerous to others, etc.
The problem with that argument is simply this: Would either Bell or the alleged other guy have worked so hard to invent the telephone if they didn't have an expectation of being able to patent it and make some money off of it before somebody else made a generic version?
What about Einstein or Maxwell or any great Physicist or Mathematician that has spent years of their lives on creating great theories? They never see any compensation from the many engineers that apply their equations to almost every thing we use. Why did not Maxwell get a 95 five year patent on his equations and why did not he and his family derive royalties from every electrical device made from 1864 till 1959? Why did not Einstein and his family make royalties off all the aerospace space companies that use relativity when designing thier products?
The idea of patents to me seems as though it is very unfairly and narrowly applied. Many people that make great contributions to society never benefit from it but people that make minor uses and sometimes not so minor uses of far greater mans ideas make great fortunes with patents. This too me seems illogical and unfair. No invention comes from nothing it is based on the greatness of others and I see no reason why a few smart people that are fortunate enough to make something that people value should be so greatly rewarded when the truly brilliant people make very little.
That's great, but what if you want something usable? Debian's packages are so old that it's mostly irrelevant in situations where you need to interoperate with any windows technology.
Try backports.org they have many updated packages for Debian.