Er...actually I just wanted to know about the case and outcome. As for "behind the screen", I'm well aware: a friend, my last room mate, is a computer science major; I keep track with the trends myself, and I'm studying math (though my major is bio) for its elegance and utility--and would love to dive back back into programming (and that coupled with a growing and working knowledge of computing machines' innards: in my mind it's not even right to just call them "computers", which is what a number cruncher [person] is), which I loved: pressuring the brain to solve problems big and small, concoct algorithms, and watch it all come to life. I got sick so I had to quit! (And by the time they were done with me, my brain was quite fried.)
I'm also not against exporting encryption or such things as it's a good idea for international stances, the well being of the country in which I live and reside, and I appreciate that it permits such programmers from across oceans, continents, and borders, to more freely collaborate; the one up-side to encryption export restrictions might have been parallel development of different approaches, which results I know not of, but hope there were.
Gee, they provide the most usable end-user distro despite the flailing, ineffectiveness, and vitriol of the community they work within; they sponsor other FOSS projects heavily; they hire people from various other parts of the FOSS community knowing that by making sure those people have jobs they not only get improvement in their own distro, but those people can keep working in their respective FOSS projects' code-bases.
The Kernel is not all there is nor all that matters, and relatively speaking the kernel is of the most interest and benefit to the huge private corporations, while the stuff Canonical touches is of the most interested to the regular users--and even not-so-regular, however--alike.
Wanted to add to your comment's other replies. Ubuntu has taken the lead and shown "Debian, how it should be"--not in the sense of "you shouldn't be purist", but rather "you're design-by-committee stance has been too slow, ineffective, etc.", not by saying it aloud, they've surely cooperated heavily, but by demonstrating it. Ubuntu has been a refreshing influence for Debian, and after having gone so far ahead that they lost binary compatibilities, they're even willing to work together with it to bring things back together.
I'd personally like to see more reverse of that influence: more tidiness, speed, etc., in Ubuntu: not less features, necessarily, (though those can cause the loss of speed), but rather higher code quality. I believe that Ubuntu's work, besides being from the "unstable" category branch of Debian, does indeed contribute back to Unstable, however, so maybe that's less of a problem--and that also depends on how much Debian accepts: I hope they'll increasingly accept more and improve upon the quality, implementations, etc., to round-out and enrich their base distro: Debian is, after all, a huge storehouse, and little more, for a bunch of software that's not really all that usable, tightly integrated, etc., but "available" for others to take and modify, improve upon, etc., as-needed: that's its strength. Usability is Ubuntu's, and I believe that strength is a benefit to Debian.
Here's to hoping for a stronger cooperative, collaborative, ecosystem of code, with many ideas and implementations, and where the smartest (for the environment) wins out among the Democratic in terms of user-numbers, while the right tool for the right jobs wins-out in case-by-case situations. : )
"Physicality", first of all, is actually required under U.S. law to patent anything. That the patent office has been granting software patents doesn't mean they're legal or legit, though they can be litigated until high-enough courts intervene (and the Supreme just may shortly). Ideas, pure ideas, aren't patentable, and in terms of metaphysics, that's what math (and thus by its nature, software) is: it is, in fact, denied outright any status of patentabality, period: that charlatanical lawyers can B.S. the lesser-enobled minds of certain lower courts and official offices doesn't change that.
There was a case in the U.S. where a physical process for transforming physical matter just so happened to include a piece of software, but the blessing on the patent (which was questioned because of this) was bestowed because of the physical processes involved, with the minority opinion objecting not because this wasn't true, but because (they cautioned) of the danger that lower offices/courts might take this to mean that software patents were now considered valid (they are not): there is also, of course, the blood-sucking mob of greedy bastards out there who care neither way, and who pine and salivate at the thought of patenting what is not physical (because they understand how lucrative it can be, and how easily subject to abuse it is).
As for patents covering physical things, patents are for ideas in one sense, but more precisely for implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves: since software hides implementation in the code or binary, and because if it works it really doesn't matter, then it's ineligible: the significance of patenting software is this, it is patenting ideas. Of course one can call the implementation itself an idea, and that's true, but here's where another criterion comes into play: obviousness. Most software patents are dead giveways, things so obvious that anyone with two bits who takes a little time to think can think of them: even more among those who know about software, code, technical things, etc.; (it's not Joe-Bio who is the standard for determining obviousness, by the way, it's specialists: case in point, I know a certain company currently patenting application of a certain coating the kills bacteria to grocery cart handles, magazine covers, and more: I know of this because of a family friend that works there, and she was pissed-off when I told her that the patent, even if granted, shouldn't be considered eligible, and should be shot-down if ever challenged in court. Why? Because a bunch of us undergrads dreamed-up that (and much more) application of well-known chemicals/coatings/materials years ago, and undergrads with just a wee-bit education do it every year, apart from anyone who has formerly done so transmitting anything of the idea, whenever they have biological, chemistry, or epidemiological courses (or any class that includes those subjects, which all three sorts of coursework do include at basic "intro we're going to take an expansive and advertising/marketing-like make-you- learn-a-little-of-everything-so-you'll-have-a-lot-of-interesting-but-useless-info but-hopefully-have-your-interests-piqued-somewhere-in-our-fields-of-interest-and-stay-in-this-college-and-major-here, bring-in-money, and-expand-our field" class levels).
I'm very young, with little formal education regarding electronics, computer sci, programming, etc., yet have for years now as a sort of joke-hobby written-down little ideas when they've come-up (have had lots of exposure to the types, and people working in these fields, in FOSS, etc.), and watched as major corps. patent those ideas later, hail it as some breakthrough, and then found that many others like myself thought of the same things. It's a huge joke. But what's worse, the very basics required to interact with any modern computer system, or to make almost any program with any gui at all--tends to break numerous patents: all jokes.
Bionerd here...to the rescue. "Virgin birth" has a technical name, "parthenogensis", and yes, offspring from it have DNA 'similar' (we'll just leave it that simply for purposes of this reply) to the mother's; the trouble is that, contrary to your statement, it does not occur in human beings.
Parthenogenesis is well-documented and researched in non-mammalian species, and the many factors that would be necessary for mammalian parthenogenesis are also well-researched, but the actual occurrence is not only nil, the closest phenomena (which aren't) aren't close: maybe a tumor here or there growing weirdly. As a matter of fact, many many many mechanisms exist cellularly to block an egg cell from getting anywhere near some state of capacity to produce another human being: and for many good reasons. But as with the first aforementioned "leaving it at that", we'll leave it simply at that, for the purposes of this reply.
For now, leave the realm of miracles with...God. (The actual documented cases of parthenogenesis have none of the significance as the biblical event, nor do the processes and mechanisms of the natural events map to human intracellular processes, by the way.)
Besides that, I liked some of your replies up there. : )
Not a hippie: "Save on paper towels. The tree you save could be your next roll top desk" is one of my favorite woodworkers' expressions. : )
My point was more oriented toward fellow mammalia. The essence of your point "why people pretend they know what [other animals] feel like" could be applied between ever individual of the human race too, "why people pretend to know what other people feel like...", but then science shows us there's something built-in to the biology to do it: and the point isn't to do so exactly, precisely, just approximately, "accurately enough". Kick a dog in the ribs and see what happens, kick a human likewise and see what happens. Also, your use of "feel" is as amphorous as popular speech, so if we're going to be speaking of scientific matters, please define; when I say feel I'm speaking of physical sensation, not emotion or cognitive evaluation: most people muddle-up all these things and then speak without cognizance of any and it's something I'd like a law for, authorizing beatings for all such "thinkers". Some other animal creature--just because of the difficulties we'll stick to mammalia--may not evaluate a sensation of "pain" exactly as we, but that doesn't mean they don't sense it, or share such a sensation, and pretending that it's completely unknowable is a return to gnosis and is the sort of academic pretense and overprecision (in many cases) for which men get rightly mocked: especially the inevitable self-righteous-like responses, such as "pretending to be able to know what something else feels like" sort of "I'm better and more a thunker[1] than you" demonstrations, as you've just put on display.
Precision or equivalency is not the criterion for commonality or empathy, or mutual understanding: if such were, there would be no communication or interpersonal or cultural sensitivity or awareness; science deals with imprecision and precision alike, and if you've philophically bungled these you'll produce the sort of snarling non-starters and holier-than-thou "preaching" as that I've just critiqued.
[1] Yes, it's purposely spelled that way (just in case).
Valid and true criticisms, but missing the point nonetheless; people use Flash because "IT JUST WORKS". A developer can build flash apps thhat will run across platforms, over the web, etc. etc., such that less money and time are expended: imperfect, sure. But "IT JUST WORKS"...how well it works is another issue altogether. When it's a cheasy game or some simple corporate training app, however, who cares?
Adobe did something that nobody else did: they introduced a cross-platform (I'm considering the varying versions of Windows different to some extent too) platform and said "have at it"/"have fun". The likes of Microsoft said "we'll give integrated tools that [somewhat] work across our own versions of Windows [except it really won't too long nor be very reliable, nor do we provide full API documentation-though we do have extensive moving-target documentation...] and by our sheer size be the de facto provider of tools", but they would ignore other platforms and the fact is people do want to use other platforms, for whatever reason/s (that's up to them). At work we just had a bunch of computers re-installed with either Linux or Unix (can't tell b/c of security lock-out, but it's running XFCE) and guess what? They're happy because, among other things, all their training apps (which are Flash, and terrible) continue to work.
But even more significant for the web, Adobe provided a platform for content delivery that is reliable (in the sense that it will look the same), which also ties nicely into the "make once, save time" meme above. While the market losers gleefully talked of ideals and open standards, and the only player by sheer size (Microsoft) ignored them, (and not just for control, but because the "standards" are often so vague, poorly written, inconsistent, and irrational/illogical/unreasonable that they. are. crap. CSS being a good example--trying interpreting that and writing a parser and then talk to ten other experts doing the same and all come to different conclusions on many of the points), Adobe slipped-in and provided tools to get it done, and be commercial, and subvert Microsoft's predominance. Really, it's impressive, even if there are (many) kinks and flaws, which have to be expected of anything that relies on interpretation or compilation at runtime (there are some good demos out there that illustrate one of them, about Flash having to deal with the complex math of a hand-drawn "straight" line and how a "simple" "straight" line--with all the human-eye imperceptible imperfections--is one of the things that can quickly make Flash so complex and so draining/slow).
I think that you, sir, have just implicitly misrepresented what the video presents. One would not say "I will not deny that I killed that guy". The advice was (summarizing) "don't talk to the police" because "anything you say can be used against you, while anything you don't cannot be used against you". In this view, saying "I will not deny that I killed that guy" could be used against one--one said something--while saying nothing at all could not be. I think that the place to say something, if one should be found to be accused, would be in testimony in court, with the counsel of the lawyer, not to the police. In that video, regarding this advise being good, a lawyer, a Supreme Court Justice (his writing quoted), and a cop, are all in agreement.
But before you think I misread you, I didn't: I just presented the above just in case, because you wrote that one would say "I will not deny that I killed that guy", even if "by omission" (that is, by not saying anything). So with that considered, I'll say it again, that if I understand these matters correctly, what one does not say cannot be used against one, while what one does say can and will be used against you (even true statements that if they were accepted by themselves would prove innocence). There may be presumption theoretically in law, but perhaps there is no guarantee of this before either a jury of peers nor among the police whose job is to arrest and make cases to prosecute, according to the video. In relation to this, some whom I know that are on-track to go to law school have said that in any instance where an officer or authority/official ever claims that not saying anything can be used against you, implies guilt, etc., it means (if presented in court and accepted, or recorded, or officers admit, or witnesses confirm, etc. etc.) that you are off, period: even if they had you on tape, but you did not admit or say anything, and they said that not doing so would mean your guilt would be assumed. That wouldn't mean, however, that one should (if we're to take the message of that video seriously) say anything, boast, brag, whatever, whether innocent or guilty; rather one should (I think in keeping with the video's advice) still say nothing period, even with or without a lawyer's presence; I believe the reasoning behind this immediate "one is free, period, and cannot be found guilty, if an officer were to imply/say this", is because of a ruling of court: officers can deceive you, of course, but they can't say or imply presumption of guilt if one does not waive one's fifth amendment rights: the courts have taken such trickery very seriously and frowned on it gravely, whereas claims that waiving them will help, however, aren't taken to be so bad.
Disclaimer: the above is personal opinion, and is not binding, does not constitute legal advise or counsel, and in no way should be construed to be authoritative or suitable for any purpose, use, or capacity except exhibiting the qualities and functioning as expression of protected ideas and speech under Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any factual, logical, argumentative, theoretical, or other errors, mis-statement/s, or controversial matter is unintended, demonstrates the author's imperfection and the unsuitability of taking the text for anything more than reading another's opinion, and show that the author is no authority nor to be taken as such in these matters as of this writing. The foregoing is meant only as discourse in the genre of critical commentary for continuing public discussion of ideas and is therefore presented with the intent that replies of any nature, positive, negative, or ambivalent, are welcome.
Commercial radio is paid for in kind by me donating my time to listen to corporate messages.
I think this was part of the reasoning for which the U.S. Courts rejected the media companies' arguments that recording their broadcasts was infringement (it's not on public t.v., radio, etc.), for which they argued therefore that the technology to do it (or the button, since it's almost intrinsic to the devices) should be illegal (sound familiar with the crap technology enthusiasts have to put up with today?). The media WAS paid for (by the broadcasters) and the consumers themselves paid for it because they listened to the commercials with which the copyright holders/licensees paid for it, thus they weren't allowed to double-dip (though they desperately desire to, and do in other ways: I wish the courts paid more attention to this precedent).
He who controls the copyright, controls how it gets to be copied, get it? Here's my reasoning on this, but this does not constitute legal advice:
No, Pink Floyd isn't inserting itself in-between: EMI agreed to do something and didn't comply. By your reasoning, by the way, any publisher should be allowed to take and chop-up chapters or portions of a book and distribute piecemeal instead of in whole--nobody would accept this as legit and the authors would likely be peturbed to being misrepresented like that (each part belongs in the larger whole for the overall/entire meaning).
On the other hand, someone online, for non-commercial or educational purposes, could offer excerpts (even fairly large ones, it all depends on how it's used) of, say, a book, but they wouldn't be able to offer every single one piece-by-piece: if you decide, instead of using fair use to get bits out there, to become a book distributor, you can buy-up and sell copies of the book, but you still can't just sell pieces just because, for the copyright holder controls how copies are made. You might get away with selling portions compiled with portions of other works as a compilation under the theory that you have the right to sell bits of the work under such circumstances (creating a larger whole for a different purpose), but note again you wouldn't just get to sell bits of the original in and of themselves, and with the ambiguity involved and how iffy this is the usual procedure would likely necessarily be followed: procure the permission/licensing of the copyright holder to use the matter in the compilation. On the other hand, if the compilation was not commercial, that's another story all together.
If you can't be bothered to give them correct information I can see why you have not gotten an acceptable response.
You see, this is the kind of snideness that turns people off of from [F]OSS types and the community: from the comment that "Jeng" replied to I wouldn't have assumed (as Jeng did) that the guy "couldn't be bothered" (as his reply, http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1572692&cid=31372116 reveals) but rather that because someone made a mistake the devs (or whoever is in charge of dealing with bug submissions) held the guy in contempt: that's the kind of bull for which people are no-gos to work with.
I understand and agree COMPLETELY with prejudice against responding to those who submit things incorrectly when (1) firm warning has been given that un-carefully filled-out information will be ignored because (2) it would take-up too much time, (and I also understand there could be many disadvantages, misunderstandings, and lost opportunities by doing this as well, and that some people may not be the "can't be bothered types" yet aren't very competent: don't forget that even the incompetent can be helpful); the dmoz project is a good example of this prejudice in action: poorly written submissions and mis-categorizations consume a lot of their volunteers' time, so the former type gets dropped, the latter type (so long as the rest of the submission is decent) must be sent to the bottom of the queue of the category to which it belongs; happily enough dmoz editors will often explain to those who ask why their submission has not appeared or was rejected (or historically they have done so), which is much more encouraging for people to keep participating--good luck at ever getting similar feedback/care, that is for some average Joe who appears on the scene to help, out of many of the major projects of the FOSS community (sadly).
The brash assumptions, impudence, and quickness to judgment (1. yes, a play on a well-known verse of the Bible, and 2. I'm not against being "judgmental"--as people popularly decry "judging", just against being hasty about it) that are commonly known featurs in [the] FOSS [community] have to stop: perhaps it's not that widespread and it's just because of notable figures or influential organizations: but if that's the case, maybe there needs to be a purge or two to get rid of elements that [rightly] bring tarnish to its name (then again, rapid or "revolutionary" change often provides perfect opportunity for charlatans and tricksters, so it's likely better to direct things to evolve slowly, getting incrementally better to prevent any disruptions in power/influence that could leave the movement vulnerable).
Bad reasoning, it's an either-...or; Apple is basically saying, "if you want to make money, we take a cut, but if you want to give it away, go ahead", or "Either we get a piece, or you get no pie". If devs wanted to give something away in the first place there would be no benefit to Apple, and there are many reasons for this, but otherwise commercial software is somethign Apple wants control over on "their" platform customers' [paid-for] devices.
Appeal to consequences: inconsequential when your government boasts of the rule of law, then flaunts their disdain for it; our Fed has no authority to even debate providing healthcare, while they can legislate at some of the root issues, (1) tort Reform, (2) apply anti-trust laws to insurance companies and criminally prosecute the federally-permitted/encouraged collusion, (3) remove monopoly control (through top-down authority) of the AMA by creating truly competing bodies for licensure along scientific grounds and eliminating its (illegal) powers to mandate practices by doctors that hike prices, produce (intentionally) shortages, and attempt to make medical practitioners recession and hardship -proof (let the best and brightest flourish, the rest perish as all others in any field must struggle against), (4) remove (often illegal) government interference where it has led to worse practices and evils, and (5) prevail upon these entities where they have broken their contracts, penalizing them brutally under current laws, despite their efforts to dissuade such prosecutions by attacking the politicians' voting bases (which can be prevented by charging for libel and slander when corporations, for-profit or non, company or union, whatever, twist facts and lie by omission, etc., which are things NOT protected by the first amendment: "free" speech here IS qualified--limited--to what is true, not unrestrained and open to whatever anyone wants to say whenever however).
The Fed has the power to prosecute and such because almost all these entities operate across state boundaries, thus falling under inter-state commerce, which the Fed has a hand in.
Anybody who wants to provide correction or opinion, supportive, in different light, or contra, well, go ahead: matters of understanding--which the above is, that is, is my understanding--DO fall under free speech is presented as such and if such presentation is protected as free speech, but nevertheless means one must be open to argumentation and correction as well.
Actually the idea is that it tastes like Cocaine, which you can still get legally (in the form of the leaves) in Columbia for altitude sickness. (They're sold quite openly and tourists chew them while ascending in altitude.) I believe the original taste has not been preserved but modified--they had a special not too long ago where the original taste (though not formula, of course!) was bottled so people could try, but nonetheless it's not so different as to have totally rejected that idea.
When I say "the idea is that it tastes like Cocaine" I don't mean to imply they want people drinking it of curiosity to sell drugs, as one might psychologically assume, either; when Coke first became available Cocaine use was still a rather individual choice and substances much less regulated, neither glamorous nor exactly frowned upon: just another substance for various uses and purposes. The point of drinking Coke? People liked it. Sure they were "nudged" by advertising (and hooked by its addictive properties), "probably" more than "nudged", but people did like it, and still do; in fact as unbelievable as this may be, people like many other substances' tastes that we would think nobody should or would, from commonly known ones like antifreeze (was often used in Wines, is still found in BBQ sauces and other goos needing thickening) to dangerous "trade secret" chemicals (chemicals that are not subject to EPA regulation because of the claim they are secrets for trade purposes--perhaps some are even in coke, and many are probably in the various popularly flavored chips: read the back of Doritos bags indicating secret ingredients not available upon request except by physicians for treatment and diagnostic purposes, who must sign in aggreement to nondisclosures), that if listed (or in the case of the secret ones, if known) would be just as baggage-loaded with nefarious implications as your statement above is by injecting "battery acid" in near proximity to "Coco-Cola".
Should we be consuming all this stuff? It's arguable, and it depends; depends on form; depends on a person's genes (Swedes can slam pots of coffee no problemo, whereas those of other genetic ethnicities may get heart attacks, murmurs, and other issues drinking that much or even any amount of coffee; eggs are good, eggs are bad, cholesterol intake is good no bad, milk intake after maturity is good no bad, etc. etc.--the un-PC decisive factor here is we are all NOT the same with regards many qualities, and it can be or usually is sex, race, ethnic, genetic -u/ally or individually based.
On a side note, I'm no advocate of mistreating anyone based on these factors, and affirm that we are to affirm and protect the rights granted under law without regards these or these sorts of things or distinguishing factors. And relatedly, it's this sort of stuff, i.e. whether something is good or bad, dangerous or not, etc., which in reporting betrays how unscientific our society has become, surrendering the discovery and confirmation of mechanism and causation (through repeated testing under wide and various conditions implementing controls while mitigating confounding and other variables) in favor of the pragmatic methods like finding statistical connections and despite not further experimenting, heralding new such connections as important and advance of science, rather than mere fodder in need of testing where true and where inapplicable. Everyone wants to proclaim "but wider sampling and accounting for variables means it becomes scientific", but that rather means it becomes less and less individually applicable and more generally observed, and all the more reason for beginning testing such connections with regards all the things denied or forbidden by egalitarianism taken to the absurdities it demands.
Your comment is a perfect example of being off-topic; as such, it functions as a diversion from the real matter at hand--the illegal installation of malware onto many computers, breaching privacy laws, and worse, under guise as an update, rather than something new altogether; this ain't no Mac vs. Lin vs. Win issue, and your mind's immediate jump to such things as those, and "piracy", is a perfect example of how unfortunately stupid people are these days--too quick to speak; I want to be fair, however, I'm an idiot too: I do it too much too, but I'm trying not to; I say this in friendly encouragement--shut-up more often.
Speaking of speaking out of ignorance: WGA installs on all computers running Windows, "pirated" (ahem, stolen, not pirated--there is a legal difference) or legit, and it does indeed flag legit installs, even proper installs, for whatever reasons unknown: too often; I've heard reports that it sometimes flags machines even after having "validating" them already once before. The thing is, Microsoft has no legal rights to validate any computer, period: even if someone has breached copyright by installing an illegit duplicate: there are no legal means for them to create effective enforcement mechanisms outside of going through court: seriously. SERIOUSLY. Just because software is dynamic instead of static, does not mean those who make it may begin to become their own legal enforcers, judges, etc.. This is a serious trespass on authority, just as are so many other things (use licenses overriding secured rights, etc.) these days: so much arrogance--even more when the Microsofty types decide they'll pay what it takes to have laws written for them, pragmatic rather than concerned with just government.
I can't say it's just Microsoft, though. It's like the lawyers pissed about the "residual overhang of physicality", who want laws to ensure they and clients can continue extracting protection money for "IP" without continuing to make real product: those laws are set-up to be just, not subjugate justice to profit; it's like the lower courts' and patent offices ignoring the Supreme Court's caution that the case reviewed regarding a patent which included a piece of software in a physical transformation does not mean software is patentable: all this patent litigation over software is illegitimate, unauthorized, i.e. illegal, but the unauthorized "authorities" have been using power they are not given for enforcement nonetheless; it's like the congress, president, executive staff, political parties (both major ones), etc., making laws federally they are not authorized even to debate in session--which some of the more open scumbags (who were actually open about being scumbags) have dared repeatedly say in session in congress, and to the public: and here we get to the point where a bunch of jerk offs who want this or that with society, this way vs. their way vs. his way, cry "but but but" without any real deference or regard for "rule of law", which has been of late bandied about too often by those who so often trample it.
Sheesh.
e whole case is rather about
I have this vague memory about some color coded threat level that was never green, and seemed to go from yellow to orange any time there was an election...
What you're trying to imply is idiotic (and really, no offense, it's just bad reasoning). OF COURSE it won't go green--you don't want everyone to think all is fine and dandy when it's not, (as green implies to the dumb dumbs out there), and elections are ALWAYS major events most convenient and useful to disrupt the affairs of a country, create paranoi, and even internal turmoil to the extent of internal conflicts. Why do you think there was so much security surrounding Obama, for instance, so much angst over the prospect of him getting elected among security personnel, etc.? Because if someone did anything to him, among all people, it would not just be a crime, or crimes but one that could strart race wars, etc.. I know 'gung ho' types 'good 'ol boys' who are all for 'defending the constitution with a gun' (that is, after all, the reason for the second amendment among other things), and yet they're not so fanatical as to think what so many people did in fact suggest towards Obama--political assassinations. 'That would (1) cause too much internal strife and (2) wouldn't be right and (3) violate process', they say.
Yet people did suggest just such things, I've heard. Moreover, imagine how opportune such a thing is to external enemies of the state? Just imagine?
Elections, in any country, are always times for heightened securities and alerts--it wasn't just a convenience thing for the Bush admin, even if security was something he could stress often for political advantage. One honestly just has to look at the guy and how he aged, though, to get an impression that such things (keeping the people of the nation really secure) were dear to him: seems like he stressed majorly over it, though it's also true that most presidents seem to age quickly: we shouldn't be too quick to point unappreciative fingers at either friend, or foe, mortal or political.
And before the partisan finger pointing begins (though perhaps the following could be construed to start it), I'd like to 'point out' that the current administration was eager to zealously take advantage of all the political powers and authority Bush did accrue for the Executive Branch, and zealously use they have done--with much less restraint. The pointing out Bush's official really does seem like a convenient diversions.
On top of all this: I dislike both political parties with passion, so don't take that as partisan.
Removing functionality from X. Deleting the ability to restore a feature.
What's that?
Making it damn near impossible to troubleshoot X crashes.
How's that?
Ppppppp-p p p ulseaudio
No explanation required.
Yes, I'm sincerely asking: don't know but would like to, and you have info I don't. : ) I'm a long way from being programming anything, or helpful to these things, but try to keep track for when that point comes.
It's cool stuff. Powershell is something for which I know of several programmers and tech types have eagerly waited. This level of advanced integration in Windows over Unixes, Linux, and other OSes, shouldn't be a surprise when the other OSes have eschewed such design very often by principle, other times out of stupid pride, yet also missed it for having little context, drive, or even discipline (where it has been desired) to give the umph to make it happen; it was kind of the anti-gates movement, whereas Bill always went about preaching, teaching, praising, and encouraging 'further and deeper integration' as something that will keep the Windows brand strong and attractive, and I think he's right--at least on a consumer/business OS (GTD people!), Linux/etc. went about preaching 'bad idea, insecure...', etc., which has often proved right (on security), but meaning those who follow the second route will have less power. There are advantages and drawbacks to either approach, but I must say that those that think that the many nerd and geek features had by the Unixes and Linuxes but not by Windows (which has a totally different heritage) means Windows is not as advanced are sorely missing many points and insensitive to strategies involved in the playing field.
Anyway, I appreciate the loose integration of Linux system components: I like to be able to drop things in or take them out, though it does often cause weird problems (e.g. the Ubuntu forums are often flooded with issues related to those who install multiple desktops), especially since the Linux community isn't big on actually pushing polished, well-tested, rather than always-somewhat-in-development, released-to-encourage-adoption/debug, own-standards-compliant (no authorities to force it when human nature moves away from, not towards, conformity), wares. Yet I'm beginning to study Linux terminals, its text editors, etc., (aiming towards proficiency in technology beyond a basic use or enthusiast, including in programming), and when I see something like Powershell, wonder if I would better spend my time switching back to Windows. Then again, the Unix heritage and somewhat-mimickers (Linux is not Unix, but a clone of Minix with some Unix design) have established a lot of thoroughly tested tech and standards (defacto or otherwise), including Vim, etc., which are cross-platform, so maybe I won't switch entirely.
If Iran is truly threatening to "nuke" Israel, then they will stop doing so the moment they actually acquire their own nuclear capabilities
Israel is so small that it would be relatively simple to dessimate the non-Islamic population centers without necessarily worrying of a considerable reprisal; what would Israel target, after all, Iran's central governing cities? (Which would be emptied, likely, before an attack.) Their non-central cities? (Where it is known, especially in Israel, that many people are more liberal--more 'live and let live'--than in the countryside which supports the Iranian regime?) What does one do on a sub when one's country has vanished, nuke or move-on? Nuke to show 'you shouldn't mess with [that which no longer exists]'?
I'm probably looking at this too simply, I'll grant you, but again, 'Israel ain't big', and more importantly, 'one needn't target all of it, just certain population centers'.
The whole reason that nukes are great as a defense is that nobody wants to be involved in a nuclear war.
Your theory depends on, assumes, rationality of all peoples; even the proud USSR, however, did not believe this of its own people--the reason they implemented a sophisticated system of checks and balances to satisfy, and keep from button-pressing, their own [powerful] psychos; it was also for Castro's begging 'let's nuke 'em' (the U.S.) that they pulled nukes off Cuba (not the presidential demand).
Islam, and its followers, which, and who are, hewing close to its, and their, zealous, pristine, roots isn't a force we want having nukes: even the most Islamic of Islamic countries (like Saudi Arabia) don't want this (because there the rulers are quite happy with their lives, and don't want rival threats); plenty of Iranians are quite reasonable these days, such that they wouldn't want nuclear war or to use a weapon unprovoked: but nobody trusts the fanatical government of Iran to be the same in this opinion--or going 'oops, we lost one or a couple, we don't know'; even Pakistan, which is relatively more stable (or has been), armed for years, and having decent (though tense) relations with the western world, has been (as we all know now) plagued with guarding their weapons, information regarding their creation, design, the process, etc..
I think I like you (okay, as far as one screen name can like another behind a screen name based on a single posting, whom one will likely never come into contact with in conversation--such as in the massive crowd of/., again)! : )
Slashdot Mirror
Er...actually I just wanted to know about the case and outcome. As for "behind the screen", I'm well aware: a friend, my last room mate, is a computer science major; I keep track with the trends myself, and I'm studying math (though my major is bio) for its elegance and utility--and would love to dive back back into programming (and that coupled with a growing and working knowledge of computing machines' innards: in my mind it's not even right to just call them "computers", which is what a number cruncher [person] is), which I loved: pressuring the brain to solve problems big and small, concoct algorithms, and watch it all come to life. I got sick so I had to quit! (And by the time they were done with me, my brain was quite fried.)
I'm also not against exporting encryption or such things as it's a good idea for international stances, the well being of the country in which I live and reside, and I appreciate that it permits such programmers from across oceans, continents, and borders, to more freely collaborate; the one up-side to encryption export restrictions might have been parallel development of different approaches, which results I know not of, but hope there were.
Gee, they provide the most usable end-user distro despite the flailing, ineffectiveness, and vitriol of the community they work within; they sponsor other FOSS projects heavily; they hire people from various other parts of the FOSS community knowing that by making sure those people have jobs they not only get improvement in their own distro, but those people can keep working in their respective FOSS projects' code-bases.
The Kernel is not all there is nor all that matters, and relatively speaking the kernel is of the most interest and benefit to the huge private corporations, while the stuff Canonical touches is of the most interested to the regular users--and even not-so-regular, however--alike.
Wanted to add to your comment's other replies. Ubuntu has taken the lead and shown "Debian, how it should be"--not in the sense of "you shouldn't be purist", but rather "you're design-by-committee stance has been too slow, ineffective, etc.", not by saying it aloud, they've surely cooperated heavily, but by demonstrating it. Ubuntu has been a refreshing influence for Debian, and after having gone so far ahead that they lost binary compatibilities, they're even willing to work together with it to bring things back together.
I'd personally like to see more reverse of that influence: more tidiness, speed, etc., in Ubuntu: not less features, necessarily, (though those can cause the loss of speed), but rather higher code quality. I believe that Ubuntu's work, besides being from the "unstable" category branch of Debian, does indeed contribute back to Unstable, however, so maybe that's less of a problem--and that also depends on how much Debian accepts: I hope they'll increasingly accept more and improve upon the quality, implementations, etc., to round-out and enrich their base distro: Debian is, after all, a huge storehouse, and little more, for a bunch of software that's not really all that usable, tightly integrated, etc., but "available" for others to take and modify, improve upon, etc., as-needed: that's its strength. Usability is Ubuntu's, and I believe that strength is a benefit to Debian.
Here's to hoping for a stronger cooperative, collaborative, ecosystem of code, with many ideas and implementations, and where the smartest (for the environment) wins out among the Democratic in terms of user-numbers, while the right tool for the right jobs wins-out in case-by-case situations. : )
p.s. I realize I used "etc." a lot. : (
Sigh, I'll answer this one, but only shortly.
"Physicality", first of all, is actually required under U.S. law to patent anything. That the patent office has been granting software patents doesn't mean they're legal or legit, though they can be litigated until high-enough courts intervene (and the Supreme just may shortly). Ideas, pure ideas, aren't patentable, and in terms of metaphysics, that's what math (and thus by its nature, software) is: it is, in fact, denied outright any status of patentabality, period: that charlatanical lawyers can B.S. the lesser-enobled minds of certain lower courts and official offices doesn't change that.
There was a case in the U.S. where a physical process for transforming physical matter just so happened to include a piece of software, but the blessing on the patent (which was questioned because of this) was bestowed because of the physical processes involved, with the minority opinion objecting not because this wasn't true, but because (they cautioned) of the danger that lower offices/courts might take this to mean that software patents were now considered valid (they are not): there is also, of course, the blood-sucking mob of greedy bastards out there who care neither way, and who pine and salivate at the thought of patenting what is not physical (because they understand how lucrative it can be, and how easily subject to abuse it is).
As for patents covering physical things, patents are for ideas in one sense, but more precisely for implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves: since software hides implementation in the code or binary, and because if it works it really doesn't matter, then it's ineligible: the significance of patenting software is this, it is patenting ideas. Of course one can call the implementation itself an idea, and that's true, but here's where another criterion comes into play: obviousness. Most software patents are dead giveways, things so obvious that anyone with two bits who takes a little time to think can think of them: even more among those who know about software, code, technical things, etc.; (it's not Joe-Bio who is the standard for determining obviousness, by the way, it's specialists: case in point, I know a certain company currently patenting application of a certain coating the kills bacteria to grocery cart handles, magazine covers, and more: I know of this because of a family friend that works there, and she was pissed-off when I told her that the patent, even if granted, shouldn't be considered eligible, and should be shot-down if ever challenged in court. Why? Because a bunch of us undergrads dreamed-up that (and much more) application of well-known chemicals/coatings/materials years ago, and undergrads with just a wee-bit education do it every year, apart from anyone who has formerly done so transmitting anything of the idea, whenever they have biological, chemistry, or epidemiological courses (or any class that includes those subjects, which all three sorts of coursework do include at basic "intro we're going to take an expansive and advertising/marketing-like make-you- learn-a-little-of-everything-so-you'll-have-a-lot-of-interesting-but-useless-info but-hopefully-have-your-interests-piqued-somewhere-in-our-fields-of-interest-and-stay-in-this-college-and-major-here, bring-in-money, and-expand-our field" class levels).
I'm very young, with little formal education regarding electronics, computer sci, programming, etc., yet have for years now as a sort of joke-hobby written-down little ideas when they've come-up (have had lots of exposure to the types, and people working in these fields, in FOSS, etc.), and watched as major corps. patent those ideas later, hail it as some breakthrough, and then found that many others like myself thought of the same things. It's a huge joke. But what's worse, the very basics required to interact with any modern computer system, or to make almost any program with any gui at all--tends to break numerous patents: all jokes.
It c
Bionerd here...to the rescue. "Virgin birth" has a technical name, "parthenogensis", and yes, offspring from it have DNA 'similar' (we'll just leave it that simply for purposes of this reply) to the mother's; the trouble is that, contrary to your statement, it does not occur in human beings.
Parthenogenesis is well-documented and researched in non-mammalian species, and the many factors that would be necessary for mammalian parthenogenesis are also well-researched, but the actual occurrence is not only nil, the closest phenomena (which aren't) aren't close: maybe a tumor here or there growing weirdly. As a matter of fact, many many many mechanisms exist cellularly to block an egg cell from getting anywhere near some state of capacity to produce another human being: and for many good reasons. But as with the first aforementioned "leaving it at that", we'll leave it simply at that, for the purposes of this reply.
For now, leave the realm of miracles with...God. (The actual documented cases of parthenogenesis have none of the significance as the biblical event, nor do the processes and mechanisms of the natural events map to human intracellular processes, by the way.)
Besides that, I liked some of your replies up there. : )
Thanks. : ) By the way, I feel obligated to do this: http://xkcd.com/504/
Can you explain for me the brouhaha over PGP and about the Feds targetting this "Phil" character? Long or short, your choice, or even just a link. : )
Not a hippie: "Save on paper towels. The tree you save could be your next roll top desk" is one of my favorite woodworkers' expressions. : )
My point was more oriented toward fellow mammalia. The essence of your point "why people pretend they know what [other animals] feel like" could be applied between ever individual of the human race too, "why people pretend to know what other people feel like...", but then science shows us there's something built-in to the biology to do it: and the point isn't to do so exactly, precisely, just approximately, "accurately enough". Kick a dog in the ribs and see what happens, kick a human likewise and see what happens. Also, your use of "feel" is as amphorous as popular speech, so if we're going to be speaking of scientific matters, please define; when I say feel I'm speaking of physical sensation, not emotion or cognitive evaluation: most people muddle-up all these things and then speak without cognizance of any and it's something I'd like a law for, authorizing beatings for all such "thinkers". Some other animal creature--just because of the difficulties we'll stick to mammalia--may not evaluate a sensation of "pain" exactly as we, but that doesn't mean they don't sense it, or share such a sensation, and pretending that it's completely unknowable is a return to gnosis and is the sort of academic pretense and overprecision (in many cases) for which men get rightly mocked: especially the inevitable self-righteous-like responses, such as "pretending to be able to know what something else feels like" sort of "I'm better and more a thunker[1] than you" demonstrations, as you've just put on display.
Precision or equivalency is not the criterion for commonality or empathy, or mutual understanding: if such were, there would be no communication or interpersonal or cultural sensitivity or awareness; science deals with imprecision and precision alike, and if you've philophically bungled these you'll produce the sort of snarling non-starters and holier-than-thou "preaching" as that I've just critiqued.
[1] Yes, it's purposely spelled that way (just in case).
Valid and true criticisms, but missing the point nonetheless; people use Flash because "IT JUST WORKS". A developer can build flash apps thhat will run across platforms, over the web, etc. etc., such that less money and time are expended: imperfect, sure. But "IT JUST WORKS"...how well it works is another issue altogether. When it's a cheasy game or some simple corporate training app, however, who cares?
Adobe did something that nobody else did: they introduced a cross-platform (I'm considering the varying versions of Windows different to some extent too) platform and said "have at it"/"have fun". The likes of Microsoft said "we'll give integrated tools that [somewhat] work across our own versions of Windows [except it really won't too long nor be very reliable, nor do we provide full API documentation-though we do have extensive moving-target documentation...] and by our sheer size be the de facto provider of tools", but they would ignore other platforms and the fact is people do want to use other platforms, for whatever reason/s (that's up to them). At work we just had a bunch of computers re-installed with either Linux or Unix (can't tell b/c of security lock-out, but it's running XFCE) and guess what? They're happy because, among other things, all their training apps (which are Flash, and terrible) continue to work.
But even more significant for the web, Adobe provided a platform for content delivery that is reliable (in the sense that it will look the same), which also ties nicely into the "make once, save time" meme above. While the market losers gleefully talked of ideals and open standards, and the only player by sheer size (Microsoft) ignored them, (and not just for control, but because the "standards" are often so vague, poorly written, inconsistent, and irrational/illogical/unreasonable that they. are. crap. CSS being a good example--trying interpreting that and writing a parser and then talk to ten other experts doing the same and all come to different conclusions on many of the points), Adobe slipped-in and provided tools to get it done, and be commercial, and subvert Microsoft's predominance. Really, it's impressive, even if there are (many) kinks and flaws, which have to be expected of anything that relies on interpretation or compilation at runtime (there are some good demos out there that illustrate one of them, about Flash having to deal with the complex math of a hand-drawn "straight" line and how a "simple" "straight" line--with all the human-eye imperceptible imperfections--is one of the things that can quickly make Flash so complex and so draining/slow).
You, and everyone on /., look-up "mirror neurons". Have a nice day.
I think that you, sir, have just implicitly misrepresented what the video presents. One would not say "I will not deny that I killed that guy". The advice was (summarizing) "don't talk to the police" because "anything you say can be used against you, while anything you don't cannot be used against you". In this view, saying "I will not deny that I killed that guy" could be used against one--one said something--while saying nothing at all could not be. I think that the place to say something, if one should be found to be accused, would be in testimony in court, with the counsel of the lawyer, not to the police. In that video, regarding this advise being good, a lawyer, a Supreme Court Justice (his writing quoted), and a cop, are all in agreement.
But before you think I misread you, I didn't: I just presented the above just in case, because you wrote that one would say "I will not deny that I killed that guy", even if "by omission" (that is, by not saying anything). So with that considered, I'll say it again, that if I understand these matters correctly, what one does not say cannot be used against one, while what one does say can and will be used against you (even true statements that if they were accepted by themselves would prove innocence). There may be presumption theoretically in law, but perhaps there is no guarantee of this before either a jury of peers nor among the police whose job is to arrest and make cases to prosecute, according to the video. In relation to this, some whom I know that are on-track to go to law school have said that in any instance where an officer or authority/official ever claims that not saying anything can be used against you, implies guilt, etc., it means (if presented in court and accepted, or recorded, or officers admit, or witnesses confirm, etc. etc.) that you are off, period: even if they had you on tape, but you did not admit or say anything, and they said that not doing so would mean your guilt would be assumed. That wouldn't mean, however, that one should (if we're to take the message of that video seriously) say anything, boast, brag, whatever, whether innocent or guilty; rather one should (I think in keeping with the video's advice) still say nothing period, even with or without a lawyer's presence; I believe the reasoning behind this immediate "one is free, period, and cannot be found guilty, if an officer were to imply/say this", is because of a ruling of court: officers can deceive you, of course, but they can't say or imply presumption of guilt if one does not waive one's fifth amendment rights: the courts have taken such trickery very seriously and frowned on it gravely, whereas claims that waiving them will help, however, aren't taken to be so bad.
Disclaimer: the above is personal opinion, and is not binding, does not constitute legal advise or counsel, and in no way should be construed to be authoritative or suitable for any purpose, use, or capacity except exhibiting the qualities and functioning as expression of protected ideas and speech under Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any factual, logical, argumentative, theoretical, or other errors, mis-statement/s, or controversial matter is unintended, demonstrates the author's imperfection and the unsuitability of taking the text for anything more than reading another's opinion, and show that the author is no authority nor to be taken as such in these matters as of this writing. The foregoing is meant only as discourse in the genre of critical commentary for continuing public discussion of ideas and is therefore presented with the intent that replies of any nature, positive, negative, or ambivalent, are welcome.
Commercial radio is paid for in kind by me donating my time to listen to corporate messages.
I think this was part of the reasoning for which the U.S. Courts rejected the media companies' arguments that recording their broadcasts was infringement (it's not on public t.v., radio, etc.), for which they argued therefore that the technology to do it (or the button, since it's almost intrinsic to the devices) should be illegal (sound familiar with the crap technology enthusiasts have to put up with today?). The media WAS paid for (by the broadcasters) and the consumers themselves paid for it because they listened to the commercials with which the copyright holders/licensees paid for it, thus they weren't allowed to double-dip (though they desperately desire to, and do in other ways: I wish the courts paid more attention to this precedent).
He who controls the copyright, controls how it gets to be copied, get it? Here's my reasoning on this, but this does not constitute legal advice:
No, Pink Floyd isn't inserting itself in-between: EMI agreed to do something and didn't comply. By your reasoning, by the way, any publisher should be allowed to take and chop-up chapters or portions of a book and distribute piecemeal instead of in whole--nobody would accept this as legit and the authors would likely be peturbed to being misrepresented like that (each part belongs in the larger whole for the overall/entire meaning).
On the other hand, someone online, for non-commercial or educational purposes, could offer excerpts (even fairly large ones, it all depends on how it's used) of, say, a book, but they wouldn't be able to offer every single one piece-by-piece: if you decide, instead of using fair use to get bits out there, to become a book distributor, you can buy-up and sell copies of the book, but you still can't just sell pieces just because, for the copyright holder controls how copies are made. You might get away with selling portions compiled with portions of other works as a compilation under the theory that you have the right to sell bits of the work under such circumstances (creating a larger whole for a different purpose), but note again you wouldn't just get to sell bits of the original in and of themselves, and with the ambiguity involved and how iffy this is the usual procedure would likely necessarily be followed: procure the permission/licensing of the copyright holder to use the matter in the compilation. On the other hand, if the compilation was not commercial, that's another story all together.
If you can't be bothered to give them correct information I can see why you have not gotten an acceptable response.
You see, this is the kind of snideness that turns people off of from [F]OSS types and the community: from the comment that "Jeng" replied to I wouldn't have assumed (as Jeng did) that the guy "couldn't be bothered" (as his reply, http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1572692&cid=31372116 reveals) but rather that because someone made a mistake the devs (or whoever is in charge of dealing with bug submissions) held the guy in contempt: that's the kind of bull for which people are no-gos to work with.
I understand and agree COMPLETELY with prejudice against responding to those who submit things incorrectly when (1) firm warning has been given that un-carefully filled-out information will be ignored because (2) it would take-up too much time, (and I also understand there could be many disadvantages, misunderstandings, and lost opportunities by doing this as well, and that some people may not be the "can't be bothered types" yet aren't very competent: don't forget that even the incompetent can be helpful); the dmoz project is a good example of this prejudice in action: poorly written submissions and mis-categorizations consume a lot of their volunteers' time, so the former type gets dropped, the latter type (so long as the rest of the submission is decent) must be sent to the bottom of the queue of the category to which it belongs; happily enough dmoz editors will often explain to those who ask why their submission has not appeared or was rejected (or historically they have done so), which is much more encouraging for people to keep participating--good luck at ever getting similar feedback/care, that is for some average Joe who appears on the scene to help, out of many of the major projects of the FOSS community (sadly).
The brash assumptions, impudence, and quickness to judgment (1. yes, a play on a well-known verse of the Bible, and 2. I'm not against being "judgmental"--as people popularly decry "judging", just against being hasty about it) that are commonly known featurs in [the] FOSS [community] have to stop: perhaps it's not that widespread and it's just because of notable figures or influential organizations: but if that's the case, maybe there needs to be a purge or two to get rid of elements that [rightly] bring tarnish to its name (then again, rapid or "revolutionary" change often provides perfect opportunity for charlatans and tricksters, so it's likely better to direct things to evolve slowly, getting incrementally better to prevent any disruptions in power/influence that could leave the movement vulnerable).
Bad reasoning, it's an either-...or; Apple is basically saying, "if you want to make money, we take a cut, but if you want to give it away, go ahead", or "Either we get a piece, or you get no pie". If devs wanted to give something away in the first place there would be no benefit to Apple, and there are many reasons for this, but otherwise commercial software is somethign Apple wants control over on "their" platform customers' [paid-for] devices.
Appeal to consequences: inconsequential when your government boasts of the rule of law, then flaunts their disdain for it; our Fed has no authority to even debate providing healthcare, while they can legislate at some of the root issues, (1) tort Reform, (2) apply anti-trust laws to insurance companies and criminally prosecute the federally-permitted/encouraged collusion, (3) remove monopoly control (through top-down authority) of the AMA by creating truly competing bodies for licensure along scientific grounds and eliminating its (illegal) powers to mandate practices by doctors that hike prices, produce (intentionally) shortages, and attempt to make medical practitioners recession and hardship -proof (let the best and brightest flourish, the rest perish as all others in any field must struggle against), (4) remove (often illegal) government interference where it has led to worse practices and evils, and (5) prevail upon these entities where they have broken their contracts, penalizing them brutally under current laws, despite their efforts to dissuade such prosecutions by attacking the politicians' voting bases (which can be prevented by charging for libel and slander when corporations, for-profit or non, company or union, whatever, twist facts and lie by omission, etc., which are things NOT protected by the first amendment: "free" speech here IS qualified--limited--to what is true, not unrestrained and open to whatever anyone wants to say whenever however).
The Fed has the power to prosecute and such because almost all these entities operate across state boundaries, thus falling under inter-state commerce, which the Fed has a hand in.
Anybody who wants to provide correction or opinion, supportive, in different light, or contra, well, go ahead: matters of understanding--which the above is, that is, is my understanding--DO fall under free speech is presented as such and if such presentation is protected as free speech, but nevertheless means one must be open to argumentation and correction as well.
Coca-Cola actually tastes like sweet battery acid
Actually the idea is that it tastes like Cocaine, which you can still get legally (in the form of the leaves) in Columbia for altitude sickness. (They're sold quite openly and tourists chew them while ascending in altitude.) I believe the original taste has not been preserved but modified--they had a special not too long ago where the original taste (though not formula, of course!) was bottled so people could try, but nonetheless it's not so different as to have totally rejected that idea.
When I say "the idea is that it tastes like Cocaine" I don't mean to imply they want people drinking it of curiosity to sell drugs, as one might psychologically assume, either; when Coke first became available Cocaine use was still a rather individual choice and substances much less regulated, neither glamorous nor exactly frowned upon: just another substance for various uses and purposes. The point of drinking Coke? People liked it. Sure they were "nudged" by advertising (and hooked by its addictive properties), "probably" more than "nudged", but people did like it, and still do; in fact as unbelievable as this may be, people like many other substances' tastes that we would think nobody should or would, from commonly known ones like antifreeze (was often used in Wines, is still found in BBQ sauces and other goos needing thickening) to dangerous "trade secret" chemicals (chemicals that are not subject to EPA regulation because of the claim they are secrets for trade purposes--perhaps some are even in coke, and many are probably in the various popularly flavored chips: read the back of Doritos bags indicating secret ingredients not available upon request except by physicians for treatment and diagnostic purposes, who must sign in aggreement to nondisclosures), that if listed (or in the case of the secret ones, if known) would be just as baggage-loaded with nefarious implications as your statement above is by injecting "battery acid" in near proximity to "Coco-Cola".
Should we be consuming all this stuff? It's arguable, and it depends; depends on form; depends on a person's genes (Swedes can slam pots of coffee no problemo, whereas those of other genetic ethnicities may get heart attacks, murmurs, and other issues drinking that much or even any amount of coffee; eggs are good, eggs are bad, cholesterol intake is good no bad, milk intake after maturity is good no bad, etc. etc.--the un-PC decisive factor here is we are all NOT the same with regards many qualities, and it can be or usually is sex, race, ethnic, genetic -u/ally or individually based.
On a side note, I'm no advocate of mistreating anyone based on these factors, and affirm that we are to affirm and protect the rights granted under law without regards these or these sorts of things or distinguishing factors. And relatedly, it's this sort of stuff, i.e. whether something is good or bad, dangerous or not, etc., which in reporting betrays how unscientific our society has become, surrendering the discovery and confirmation of mechanism and causation (through repeated testing under wide and various conditions implementing controls while mitigating confounding and other variables) in favor of the pragmatic methods like finding statistical connections and despite not further experimenting, heralding new such connections as important and advance of science, rather than mere fodder in need of testing where true and where inapplicable. Everyone wants to proclaim "but wider sampling and accounting for variables means it becomes scientific", but that rather means it becomes less and less individually applicable and more generally observed, and all the more reason for beginning testing such connections with regards all the things denied or forbidden by egalitarianism taken to the absurdities it demands.
Your comment is a perfect example of being off-topic; as such, it functions as a diversion from the real matter at hand--the illegal installation of malware onto many computers, breaching privacy laws, and worse, under guise as an update, rather than something new altogether; this ain't no Mac vs. Lin vs. Win issue, and your mind's immediate jump to such things as those, and "piracy", is a perfect example of how unfortunately stupid people are these days--too quick to speak; I want to be fair, however, I'm an idiot too: I do it too much too, but I'm trying not to; I say this in friendly encouragement--shut-up more often. Speaking of speaking out of ignorance: WGA installs on all computers running Windows, "pirated" (ahem, stolen, not pirated--there is a legal difference) or legit, and it does indeed flag legit installs, even proper installs, for whatever reasons unknown: too often; I've heard reports that it sometimes flags machines even after having "validating" them already once before. The thing is, Microsoft has no legal rights to validate any computer, period: even if someone has breached copyright by installing an illegit duplicate: there are no legal means for them to create effective enforcement mechanisms outside of going through court: seriously. SERIOUSLY. Just because software is dynamic instead of static, does not mean those who make it may begin to become their own legal enforcers, judges, etc.. This is a serious trespass on authority, just as are so many other things (use licenses overriding secured rights, etc.) these days: so much arrogance--even more when the Microsofty types decide they'll pay what it takes to have laws written for them, pragmatic rather than concerned with just government. I can't say it's just Microsoft, though. It's like the lawyers pissed about the "residual overhang of physicality", who want laws to ensure they and clients can continue extracting protection money for "IP" without continuing to make real product: those laws are set-up to be just, not subjugate justice to profit; it's like the lower courts' and patent offices ignoring the Supreme Court's caution that the case reviewed regarding a patent which included a piece of software in a physical transformation does not mean software is patentable: all this patent litigation over software is illegitimate, unauthorized, i.e. illegal, but the unauthorized "authorities" have been using power they are not given for enforcement nonetheless; it's like the congress, president, executive staff, political parties (both major ones), etc., making laws federally they are not authorized even to debate in session--which some of the more open scumbags (who were actually open about being scumbags) have dared repeatedly say in session in congress, and to the public: and here we get to the point where a bunch of jerk offs who want this or that with society, this way vs. their way vs. his way, cry "but but but" without any real deference or regard for "rule of law", which has been of late bandied about too often by those who so often trample it. Sheesh. e whole case is rather about
I have this vague memory about some color coded threat level that was never green, and seemed to go from yellow to orange any time there was an election...
What you're trying to imply is idiotic (and really, no offense, it's just bad reasoning). OF COURSE it won't go green--you don't want everyone to think all is fine and dandy when it's not, (as green implies to the dumb dumbs out there), and elections are ALWAYS major events most convenient and useful to disrupt the affairs of a country, create paranoi, and even internal turmoil to the extent of internal conflicts. Why do you think there was so much security surrounding Obama, for instance, so much angst over the prospect of him getting elected among security personnel, etc.? Because if someone did anything to him, among all people, it would not just be a crime, or crimes but one that could strart race wars, etc.. I know 'gung ho' types 'good 'ol boys' who are all for 'defending the constitution with a gun' (that is, after all, the reason for the second amendment among other things), and yet they're not so fanatical as to think what so many people did in fact suggest towards Obama--political assassinations. 'That would (1) cause too much internal strife and (2) wouldn't be right and (3) violate process', they say. Yet people did suggest just such things, I've heard. Moreover, imagine how opportune such a thing is to external enemies of the state? Just imagine? Elections, in any country, are always times for heightened securities and alerts--it wasn't just a convenience thing for the Bush admin, even if security was something he could stress often for political advantage. One honestly just has to look at the guy and how he aged, though, to get an impression that such things (keeping the people of the nation really secure) were dear to him: seems like he stressed majorly over it, though it's also true that most presidents seem to age quickly: we shouldn't be too quick to point unappreciative fingers at either friend, or foe, mortal or political. And before the partisan finger pointing begins (though perhaps the following could be construed to start it), I'd like to 'point out' that the current administration was eager to zealously take advantage of all the political powers and authority Bush did accrue for the Executive Branch, and zealously use they have done--with much less restraint. The pointing out Bush's official really does seem like a convenient diversions. On top of all this: I dislike both political parties with passion, so don't take that as partisan.
Removing functionality from X. Deleting the ability to restore a feature.
What's that?
Making it damn near impossible to troubleshoot X crashes.
How's that?
Ppppppp-p p p ulseaudio
No explanation required.
Yes, I'm sincerely asking: don't know but would like to, and you have info I don't. : ) I'm a long way from being programming anything, or helpful to these things, but try to keep track for when that point comes.
To split infinitives is English, always has been, and incidentally it is likely that 'to' should not be considered part of the infinitive. : )
It's cool stuff. Powershell is something for which I know of several programmers and tech types have eagerly waited. This level of advanced integration in Windows over Unixes, Linux, and other OSes, shouldn't be a surprise when the other OSes have eschewed such design very often by principle, other times out of stupid pride, yet also missed it for having little context, drive, or even discipline (where it has been desired) to give the umph to make it happen; it was kind of the anti-gates movement, whereas Bill always went about preaching, teaching, praising, and encouraging 'further and deeper integration' as something that will keep the Windows brand strong and attractive, and I think he's right--at least on a consumer/business OS (GTD people!), Linux/etc. went about preaching 'bad idea, insecure...', etc., which has often proved right (on security), but meaning those who follow the second route will have less power. There are advantages and drawbacks to either approach, but I must say that those that think that the many nerd and geek features had by the Unixes and Linuxes but not by Windows (which has a totally different heritage) means Windows is not as advanced are sorely missing many points and insensitive to strategies involved in the playing field.
Anyway, I appreciate the loose integration of Linux system components: I like to be able to drop things in or take them out, though it does often cause weird problems (e.g. the Ubuntu forums are often flooded with issues related to those who install multiple desktops), especially since the Linux community isn't big on actually pushing polished, well-tested, rather than always-somewhat-in-development, released-to-encourage-adoption/debug, own-standards-compliant (no authorities to force it when human nature moves away from, not towards, conformity), wares. Yet I'm beginning to study Linux terminals, its text editors, etc., (aiming towards proficiency in technology beyond a basic use or enthusiast, including in programming), and when I see something like Powershell, wonder if I would better spend my time switching back to Windows. Then again, the Unix heritage and somewhat-mimickers (Linux is not Unix, but a clone of Minix with some Unix design) have established a lot of thoroughly tested tech and standards (defacto or otherwise), including Vim, etc., which are cross-platform, so maybe I won't switch entirely.
Israel is so small that it would be relatively simple to dessimate the non-Islamic population centers without necessarily worrying of a considerable reprisal; what would Israel target, after all, Iran's central governing cities? (Which would be emptied, likely, before an attack.) Their non-central cities? (Where it is known, especially in Israel, that many people are more liberal--more 'live and let live'--than in the countryside which supports the Iranian regime?) What does one do on a sub when one's country has vanished, nuke or move-on? Nuke to show 'you shouldn't mess with [that which no longer exists]'? I'm probably looking at this too simply, I'll grant you, but again, 'Israel ain't big', and more importantly, 'one needn't target all of it, just certain population centers'.
The whole reason that nukes are great as a defense is that nobody wants to be involved in a nuclear war.
Your theory depends on, assumes, rationality of all peoples; even the proud USSR, however, did not believe this of its own people--the reason they implemented a sophisticated system of checks and balances to satisfy, and keep from button-pressing, their own [powerful] psychos; it was also for Castro's begging 'let's nuke 'em' (the U.S.) that they pulled nukes off Cuba (not the presidential demand).
Islam, and its followers, which, and who are, hewing close to its, and their, zealous, pristine, roots isn't a force we want having nukes: even the most Islamic of Islamic countries (like Saudi Arabia) don't want this (because there the rulers are quite happy with their lives, and don't want rival threats); plenty of Iranians are quite reasonable these days, such that they wouldn't want nuclear war or to use a weapon unprovoked: but nobody trusts the fanatical government of Iran to be the same in this opinion--or going 'oops, we lost one or a couple, we don't know'; even Pakistan, which is relatively more stable (or has been), armed for years, and having decent (though tense) relations with the western world, has been (as we all know now) plagued with guarding their weapons, information regarding their creation, design, the process, etc..
I think I like you (okay, as far as one screen name can like another behind a screen name based on a single posting, whom one will likely never come into contact with in conversation--such as in the massive crowd of /., again)! : )