Wine does nothing for incompatible archs. It would need to be heavily modified to be useful. On the other hand, it is probably easier to make wine into a cross-platform windows API than it is to make the current windows API into a cross-platform windows API....
And I would put a few hundred dollars on you not being in a position to hire anyone.
Whether or not you can learn without a computer is irrelevant. The old education system is quickly falling apart, either because of its inherent flaws or inability to cope with change. "Go back to math and reading!" is not the answer and will only make the problem worse and hurt our ability to compete in an increasingly electronic world.
In short, what you want isn't relevant; adults are discussing important matters.
Rocket technology
Early computers
Internet
Countless advances made by publicly funded scientists
Of course you could argue that EVENTUALLY, all these would have been done by private interests. I don't believe that is true, but even if it is... the question is becomes how long would it have taken and how closely would it be controlled?
Cut "defense" spending, airport security, congress critter perks, and tax breaks for those who least need them. That should bring our deficit to negative. The republicrats can thank me later.
Many periodic tables even state it is the average mass of all samples. Any element with common isotopes is going to vary depending on where it is found; the same goes for carbon, which is how carbon dating works. Even largely stable elements that do not have a gas form could vary in extreme conditions.
The house essentially creates the law, and must pass it. It then goes to the senate which can revise it. In practice these tend to go on at the same time. Once it passes the house and the senate, the president can pass or veto it (veto only makes it require a larger margin).
In the US (and other common law countries) laws can be ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. Should a law be challenged and get high enough, it can essentially be repealed by the supreme court.
If copyright infringement is "theft," this is highway robbery committed by a biker gang armed with uzis against a bus full of nuns all under the sanction of the local warlord.
And for every one of those atheists that oppose abortion, there are a few million bible thumpers who oppose it for religious reasons. But hey, if a handful of people can make a stance not religious in nature, let's go for it.
I say we mandate hijab in the United States via a constitutional amendment. Yes, it is a Muslim law, but there are lots of people who don't believe in Allah who think you should wear hijab at all times. You don't have to be religious to support hijab.
Cry about your "rights" now. Oh, don't like a taste of your own medicine? Stop being a hypocrite who listens to hypocritical idiots.
"That's not hypocritical, and it's not even necessarily religious. "
And it just happens that the biggest religions and many of the conservatives in the country share that view, right? And that the majority of atheists just sit here and scratch our heads? He isn't pandering at all, no sir'ee. No religious motivation in that stance.
Regardless of the motivation, it sounds a damn lot like "I am opposed to government abridging rights except when I don't like them" to me, which is, I'd say, hypocritical. It really doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not, if he wants to change the constitution he is NOT supporting the constitution. At best, he is supporting some perverted adaptation of it.
So if Rand Paul can change the constitution and still be supporting it, so can anyone else. Otherwise it would be hypocrisy. So hey, I think that people have a right to always be equal, so I am going to "support" the constitution by adding a wealth re-allocation amendment! Yeah, that'll be supporting the constitution. You should vote for me next election.
Also, that's not a stawman, even if everything I said is false. Look up the term before you make a fool of yourself again.
I would suggest you do as well. Take a look at the causes of the Great Depression. You probably should do so before going off about how government is the greatest evil again.
It seems we can only have two options (because the others didn't work out): either the government controls something, or a corporation controls something.
Your claim that you can simply not do business with a corporation is entirely and provably false.
Example 1: ISPs. At best, you'll have 3 choices for an ISP, if you live in very high population density. One of these will be the cable company, one will be the phone company, ie local (maybe national) monopolies. The third might be an actual choice, but is probably too expensive/slow to be an option. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 2: Money exchange. The true makeup of these businesses is easily seen with Wikileaks. There are only certain accepted avenues of monetary exchange, most of which are controlled by the same corporations. You have the option of using one, or mailing letters full of cash/checks around. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 3: Media. Movie and music companies have essentially merged into two monolithic groups, the MPAA and RIAA, which act like companies in their own rights. Copyright more or less ensures you only have these companies as options. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 4: Software. Somehow, Microsoft (and possibly Apple) products have become required for many functions. You have the option of poor compatibility or buying from one or both of these companies. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
I know you really, REALLY believe that the government is the worst thing in the world, but the facts simply don't support that position. Private interests are every bit as oppressive and corrupt as the Soviet Union, and waving your hands around claiming everyone saying something you don't like is being bribed doesn't make you look any better.
Really, the problem with both government and corporations is that the people in general have to care enough to rebuke them when they do evil, rather than simply provide excuses for their cowardice in remaining quiet. The only way that freedom can be preserved in the modern world is if both the government and corporations are constantly watched.
As a patriotic American, it is your duty to stand up to all oppression, not just that from the government. The question is, are you really a patriot, or are you a cowardly little pleb repeating what you are told?
How you believe that a person who supports a constitutional amendment of nothing but religious bullshit could be PROTECTING the constitute is beyond me, and dare I say you know better. This guy is exactly what is wrong with the republican party; hypocrisy in the pocket of the rich and religious.
Why oppress the people when they oppress themselves? Practically everything we do today is controlled by corporations, either on their own accord (profit) or "self regulating" in order to avoid the government. Just look at the Wikileaks donation fiasco to know how much freedom you really have.
The best kind of oppression (for a government) is the kind that the citizens don't notice.
If the ability to copy information is any indication, there are powerful people who are going to work very hard to make this sort of thing illegal. Unfortunately, they will probably succeed here, given the requirement of specialized hardware.
Imaginary property like patents and copyright always consolidates power over information into the hands of the few. They do not protect the creators, they make ideas a commodity to be traded.
With no public leaders, it is all the easier to paint the organization as some kind of fanatical anarchist sect seeking to overthrow world order. Take a look at media coverage of Anonymous. When it isn't intentionally funny, it is funny in the sad way.
People fragmenting away from an organization that has shown it upholds moral law, especially at a time like this, are probably not people you want to be sharing your information with; they might just decide to leak you rather than it.
Well, you made me break down and go prove a point to a troll. Good job. I will be checking you for future trolling, though.
To add a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, then, I will say that this is not anything particularly shocking. The government has long pressured sites like this for information. There really isn't much difference between this system and what has been going on, except that it shows they don't feel they need to hide their spying anymore.
It is amazing what people will accept when it is done under the pretense of fighting terrorism/drugs/pedos.
Because yelling "[citation needed]" adds nothing to the discussion, annoys people, and has been said on other stories (and wikipedia itself) ad nauseum times.
Slashdot Mirror
Wine does nothing for incompatible archs. It would need to be heavily modified to be useful. On the other hand, it is probably easier to make wine into a cross-platform windows API than it is to make the current windows API into a cross-platform windows API....
You can't seriously be suggesting that Americans need more food, can you?
And I would put a few hundred dollars on you not being in a position to hire anyone.
Whether or not you can learn without a computer is irrelevant. The old education system is quickly falling apart, either because of its inherent flaws or inability to cope with change. "Go back to math and reading!" is not the answer and will only make the problem worse and hurt our ability to compete in an increasingly electronic world.
In short, what you want isn't relevant; adults are discussing important matters.
Rocket technology
Early computers
Internet
Countless advances made by publicly funded scientists
Of course you could argue that EVENTUALLY, all these would have been done by private interests. I don't believe that is true, but even if it is... the question is becomes how long would it have taken and how closely would it be controlled?
It goes to buying bibles and farmer's almanacs, of course.
"And instead of buying computers for every little snotnosed curtain climber, let's just focus on getting them able to READ and WRITE"
Because computers never helped anyone learn either of those skills, let alone any other useful skills that they will use later in life...
Cut "defense" spending, airport security, congress critter perks, and tax breaks for those who least need them. That should bring our deficit to negative. The republicrats can thank me later.
Many periodic tables even state it is the average mass of all samples. Any element with common isotopes is going to vary depending on where it is found; the same goes for carbon, which is how carbon dating works. Even largely stable elements that do not have a gas form could vary in extreme conditions.
The house essentially creates the law, and must pass it. It then goes to the senate which can revise it. In practice these tend to go on at the same time. Once it passes the house and the senate, the president can pass or veto it (veto only makes it require a larger margin).
In the US (and other common law countries) laws can be ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. Should a law be challenged and get high enough, it can essentially be repealed by the supreme court.
Either or both would work, I guess, but the nuns would be funnier now that I think about it.
If copyright infringement is "theft," this is highway robbery committed by a biker gang armed with uzis against a bus full of nuns all under the sanction of the local warlord.
And for every one of those atheists that oppose abortion, there are a few million bible thumpers who oppose it for religious reasons. But hey, if a handful of people can make a stance not religious in nature, let's go for it.
I say we mandate hijab in the United States via a constitutional amendment. Yes, it is a Muslim law, but there are lots of people who don't believe in Allah who think you should wear hijab at all times. You don't have to be religious to support hijab.
Cry about your "rights" now. Oh, don't like a taste of your own medicine? Stop being a hypocrite who listens to hypocritical idiots.
You're either naive to the extreme or willfully ignorant. Go take a look at where the opposition to abortion originates. I'll wait.
"That's not hypocritical, and it's not even necessarily religious. "
And it just happens that the biggest religions and many of the conservatives in the country share that view, right? And that the majority of atheists just sit here and scratch our heads? He isn't pandering at all, no sir'ee. No religious motivation in that stance.
Regardless of the motivation, it sounds a damn lot like "I am opposed to government abridging rights except when I don't like them" to me, which is, I'd say, hypocritical. It really doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not, if he wants to change the constitution he is NOT supporting the constitution. At best, he is supporting some perverted adaptation of it.
So if Rand Paul can change the constitution and still be supporting it, so can anyone else. Otherwise it would be hypocrisy. So hey, I think that people have a right to always be equal, so I am going to "support" the constitution by adding a wealth re-allocation amendment! Yeah, that'll be supporting the constitution. You should vote for me next election.
Also, that's not a stawman, even if everything I said is false. Look up the term before you make a fool of yourself again.
I would suggest you do as well. Take a look at the causes of the Great Depression. You probably should do so before going off about how government is the greatest evil again.
It seems we can only have two options (because the others didn't work out): either the government controls something, or a corporation controls something.
Your claim that you can simply not do business with a corporation is entirely and provably false.
Example 1: ISPs. At best, you'll have 3 choices for an ISP, if you live in very high population density. One of these will be the cable company, one will be the phone company, ie local (maybe national) monopolies. The third might be an actual choice, but is probably too expensive/slow to be an option. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 2: Money exchange. The true makeup of these businesses is easily seen with Wikileaks. There are only certain accepted avenues of monetary exchange, most of which are controlled by the same corporations. You have the option of using one, or mailing letters full of cash/checks around. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 3: Media. Movie and music companies have essentially merged into two monolithic groups, the MPAA and RIAA, which act like companies in their own rights. Copyright more or less ensures you only have these companies as options. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
Example 4: Software. Somehow, Microsoft (and possibly Apple) products have become required for many functions. You have the option of poor compatibility or buying from one or both of these companies. How are you going to decide not to do business with corporations here?
I know you really, REALLY believe that the government is the worst thing in the world, but the facts simply don't support that position. Private interests are every bit as oppressive and corrupt as the Soviet Union, and waving your hands around claiming everyone saying something you don't like is being bribed doesn't make you look any better.
Really, the problem with both government and corporations is that the people in general have to care enough to rebuke them when they do evil, rather than simply provide excuses for their cowardice in remaining quiet. The only way that freedom can be preserved in the modern world is if both the government and corporations are constantly watched.
As a patriotic American, it is your duty to stand up to all oppression, not just that from the government. The question is, are you really a patriot, or are you a cowardly little pleb repeating what you are told?
Here you go.
How you believe that a person who supports a constitutional amendment of nothing but religious bullshit could be PROTECTING the constitute is beyond me, and dare I say you know better. This guy is exactly what is wrong with the republican party; hypocrisy in the pocket of the rich and religious.
Why oppress the people when they oppress themselves? Practically everything we do today is controlled by corporations, either on their own accord (profit) or "self regulating" in order to avoid the government. Just look at the Wikileaks donation fiasco to know how much freedom you really have.
The best kind of oppression (for a government) is the kind that the citizens don't notice.
If the ability to copy information is any indication, there are powerful people who are going to work very hard to make this sort of thing illegal. Unfortunately, they will probably succeed here, given the requirement of specialized hardware.
Imaginary property like patents and copyright always consolidates power over information into the hands of the few. They do not protect the creators, they make ideas a commodity to be traded.
With no public leaders, it is all the easier to paint the organization as some kind of fanatical anarchist sect seeking to overthrow world order. Take a look at media coverage of Anonymous. When it isn't intentionally funny, it is funny in the sad way.
People fragmenting away from an organization that has shown it upholds moral law, especially at a time like this, are probably not people you want to be sharing your information with; they might just decide to leak you rather than it.
Well, you made me break down and go prove a point to a troll. Good job. I will be checking you for future trolling, though.
To add a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, then, I will say that this is not anything particularly shocking. The government has long pressured sites like this for information. There really isn't much difference between this system and what has been going on, except that it shows they don't feel they need to hide their spying anymore.
It is amazing what people will accept when it is done under the pretense of fighting terrorism/drugs/pedos.
Because yelling "[citation needed]" adds nothing to the discussion, annoys people, and has been said on other stories (and wikipedia itself) ad nauseum times.
Everybody knows you Europeans and Asians are communist spies. "Visitors" - ha! You want to steal our freedoms!!!!!!
/s