Kind of ad hominem really. The guy made a terrible mistake when younger so his policies must all be irrelevant. It's kind of the same as people who want to kick good politicians out of office because of their private lifes though obviously on a higher level.
Anyway how many people did Bush send through the execution revolving door.
[disbelief]So once again the system works.[/disbelief]
You really want to ban corperate contributions to political parties in the US or at least limit the spending then you could use tax payers money to pay for election campaigns. May not be the most popular of ideas but its better than a corperate ruled nation.
It's becoming a problem everywhere though, in the UK theres been a fuss recently over people buying their way into the House of Lords* by providing campaign funds and the end result seems likely to be tax funded political campaigns (since we've already capped campaign spending to £14m a party its hardly a huge cost to pay for drastically reducing corruption).
*which is still unelected and still has some hereditry peers despite Labour campaigning constantly on reform. No political party is ever going to change that though, their ability to suggest appointments to the upper house is one of the governments biggest sources of long term power.
The difference in this case is that OSS systems tend to deal with security issues actively rather than reactively and have never said 'patching this critical vulnerability is too hard so we won't'. They also operate on the basis that security is more important than financial efficiency so patches are released as they are finished.
Also most OSS systems start with a basis that each application should have as much access as it needs and no more.
"3. Given the long development cycle, I'd have to imagine they recoded most of the system and not based it off of their previous code which all has major critical security issues."
I'm not sure if your being sarcastic here but originally it was meant to be NT code, then they switched, then they decided their head hurt too much and switched primarily back to NT.
"7. For extra precaution, they have high system requirements and excessive annoyances (such as making the simple task of deleting a desktop icon into a 6+ step procedure) to provide a barrier so just not everyone buys it the day it is released. Seems like they have structured it so most people won't get it until atleast SP1 or later which should be great to provide extra time to make it even more secure then the most secure OS ever."
If they've done their research they'd know there is no xorg for the server install. Personally I use evilwm with my home server, got fed up with all this new fangled title bar nonsense.
Facists are people that try to enforce their belief system on other people. The US government has behaved very much like this in the past few years and so does the *AA.
It all comes together now, the US neocon government realises that the fall of the US as the dominant power will coincide with the destruction of the Earth so they decide to take their ball home with them and insist despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary that theres no such thing as GW. If we can't have it nobody can.
WRT justification of piracy. If somebody copies an album I turna blind eye since music is way overpriced anyway and makes ridiculous margins. With Games I tend to nag because very few games turn a reasonable profit and they need all the sales they get to keep going. Pirating Oblivion for one would be criminal since that sort of game needs encouragement. At the same time though while people made a fuss about the Sony root kit the gaming industry has done much similar with Starforce (and that piece of crap ware is very destructive, lost a brand new DVD-RW within weeks of installing X3).
As a Brit I must accept these charges we have been harbouring weapons of mass destruction since the cold war. We also have a policy of releasing terrorists from prison and our police recently apologised when they shot a totally innocent man who was suspected of being a terrorist. What depths have we sunk to?
This is exactly the point. Scientists focus on what can be proved or disproved (like Genesis can and has been disproven to the extent in which it is absurd to suggest otherwise). Everything else is a matter of faith (at least where it doesn't conflict with the things that can be proved/disproved). It's not an assault on religion but for a scientist to say that I'm not going to consider this because of faith then they are no longer scientists, also a scientist has to go in with the position that if I can disprove my faith then my faith is wrong (and most scientists faith can't be disproved because they don't believe in Genesis etc, you won't find many who'd give a specific position on god because they know that specificity is the realm of science).
The key issue to remember when dealing with scientists is they will never accept doctrine on an area where there is evidence. For something to have scientific relevance you must be able to prove or disprove it either way. Thats not to say that God doesn't exist but the concept is one beyond proof and disproof. No scientific argument could ever prove or disprove God and its a nonsense to suggest otherwise. The most we can do is know how the universe was formed and if God exists then such evidence is all you truely know about him.
"Not at all- for without God, without Religion, without Duty to Family, Society, and the Future- Nietzsche was RIGHT. In the long run, we have nothing and are nothing, and nothing we do matters."
He certainly accepted that nihilism leads to nothing and that you need to take yourself through it with a leap of faith essentially but his solution was entirely different to yours (he was an atheist who believed in living his life to get as much joy as he could at the end of the day, you could call him decadent) while I agree with your premise I don't agree with the solution but then again its never about agreement which was the whole point. It's based entirely on faith its just whether you aim your faith at god or at whatever you decide. I've never argued against this, people are entirely justified to believe in god if they want to believe in god.
"The EU has too high of an unemployment rate- though they're ceratinly second for stability, they're almost as unbalanced as the United States is."
Which parts. the core of the EU economy isn't too bad, certainly the UK's unemployment rate is quite low (though worryingly rising at the moment if just slowly) and debt is nowhere near where it was when Blair came in (though again is increasing slowly) but we're probably the strongest economy in Europe currently. Anyway if we ever get rid of the CAP thats 440B that can actually be spent on things other than producing 100 times the food the world would ever need then dumping it on a big mountain.
The question is whether the new EU members will drag the established ones down. Certainly the EU has held back richer members in the past (in a form, everyone is better off but the poorer countries like Ireland and Belgium have gained the most).
Its equally posible they followed a Jesus that didn't claim to be a miracle worker and that the miracles grew with the telling and were exagerated in order to gain power for the few.
Its interesting, you make very similar arguments to Friedrich Nietzsche yet the conclusions drawn from both arguments are so massively opposed it shows the value of any attempt to reason on this level.
As for the US being crucial to the world economy. On whose measure. The US economy has been performing quite badly in recent times while the likes of growing economies like India and China are booming so much that the most conservative measures suggest China will have overtaken the US as the worlds largest economic superpower within 11 years. The US debt is growing much faster than anywhere else in the world even when the population size is taken into account, the EU economy is growing in quite a stable manner above predictions again this year and its enlarging it membership futher again which will bring a whole new market and politicians are beginning to talk about ending consumer patriotism which will make a futher boost over a very long period (consumer patriotism being the biggest drag on the EU economy after the bloody CAP).
True the US is facing the toughest period for a long time and I wish your country nothing but success, however to claim that the US is somehow crucial to the world economy is a stretch at best.
There are huge ruins all over Europe from the Roman empire. Hell some of the sewer systems they built still work today. There are more than a few artifacts and a few pieces of scripture, there are horrendous amounts of documents on things from the mundane to the extrodinary and there are forts and ruins everywhere. You want us to compare this to a book that was compiled long after anyone alive during the time of Christ was dead.
Because most Christians seemingly ignore that the entire point of Christ was because Jeudaism* was seemingly following a flawed version of what god wanted and that Jesus was sent in to replace the old testament** with the new testament.
The problem is the new*** testament is about loving thy neighbour and giving up wealth to help the poor and not judging lest you be judged. None of this fits into the politcal spectrum of these people.
*out of interest not what I believe, each religion is equal in my mind but that is essentially what Christianity was founded on.
**which is for the most part a direct translation of the teachings Jesus was preaching against.
***new as in replacement, as in the old is deprecated.
The problem is there is no way of proving 99% of the bible so scientifically it is irrelevant. Science demands evidence, a person proved the earth was round with evidence. Galileo proved the earth wasn't the center of the universe with more evidence (namely the phases of venus, and the moons of jupiter and he used the retrograde motion of mars as an arguement. All of it holds up as proof but the phases of Venus alone is enough to blow the old system out of the water). So the real question for a scientist is to prove that a certain part of the bible exists.
Most scientists who believe in god aren't Christians in the absolute fundamentalist sense of the word. Most of them accept the obvious, that most of the setup of organised religion was made at least in some part as a means of control and that the number of translations and revisions in the bible make it irrelevant since it bares no resemblence to the original text.
Faith in god on the other hand is completely beyond the realm of proof. Anyone who says prove to me god exists is an idiot. It can't be proved but it may well be posible so it isn't something that can be dealt with using the normal realms of science. I'm not religious but quite happily accept others position of belief in god because quite frankly I don't know either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you not open a terminal and add a user.
Can you imagine monkey man after a few weeks with no coffee. They could tease him getting him to say developer in exchange for a cup.
Where you say crap others would say classical. Of course more people would say deprecated.
Not to mention internet connections at 256k forbid the very thought. This web thing will never take off. The pages won't fit into 512K of RAM.
Kind of ad hominem really. The guy made a terrible mistake when younger so his policies must all be irrelevant. It's kind of the same as people who want to kick good politicians out of office because of their private lifes though obviously on a higher level.
Anyway how many people did Bush send through the execution revolving door.
Actually you can and we do punish corperations for monopolistic behaviour. Rampant capitalism is of no use to society.
[disbelief]So once again the system works.[/disbelief]
You really want to ban corperate contributions to political parties in the US or at least limit the spending then you could use tax payers money to pay for election campaigns. May not be the most popular of ideas but its better than a corperate ruled nation.
It's becoming a problem everywhere though, in the UK theres been a fuss recently over people buying their way into the House of Lords* by providing campaign funds and the end result seems likely to be tax funded political campaigns (since we've already capped campaign spending to £14m a party its hardly a huge cost to pay for drastically reducing corruption).
*which is still unelected and still has some hereditry peers despite Labour campaigning constantly on reform. No political party is ever going to change that though, their ability to suggest appointments to the upper house is one of the governments biggest sources of long term power.
Was this deal ever accepted or was their original 'punishment' applied.
The difference in this case is that OSS systems tend to deal with security issues actively rather than reactively and have never said 'patching this critical vulnerability is too hard so we won't'. They also operate on the basis that security is more important than financial efficiency so patches are released as they are finished.
Also most OSS systems start with a basis that each application should have as much access as it needs and no more.
"3. Given the long development cycle, I'd have to imagine they recoded most of the system and not based it off of their previous code which all has major critical security issues."
I'm not sure if your being sarcastic here but originally it was meant to be NT code, then they switched, then they decided their head hurt too much and switched primarily back to NT.
"7. For extra precaution, they have high system requirements and excessive annoyances (such as making the simple task of deleting a desktop icon into a 6+ step procedure) to provide a barrier so just not everyone buys it the day it is released. Seems like they have structured it so most people won't get it until atleast SP1 or later which should be great to provide extra time to make it even more secure then the most secure OS ever."
At this rate SP1 will be out before Vista anyway.
If they've done their research they'd know there is no xorg for the server install. Personally I use evilwm with my home server, got fed up with all this new fangled title bar nonsense.
It would be a first for MS in the server market thats for sure.
Facists are people that try to enforce their belief system on other people. The US government has behaved very much like this in the past few years and so does the *AA.
It all comes together now, the US neocon government realises that the fall of the US as the dominant power will coincide with the destruction of the Earth so they decide to take their ball home with them and insist despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary that theres no such thing as GW. If we can't have it nobody can.
WRT justification of piracy. If somebody copies an album I turna blind eye since music is way overpriced anyway and makes ridiculous margins. With Games I tend to nag because very few games turn a reasonable profit and they need all the sales they get to keep going. Pirating Oblivion for one would be criminal since that sort of game needs encouragement. At the same time though while people made a fuss about the Sony root kit the gaming industry has done much similar with Starforce (and that piece of crap ware is very destructive, lost a brand new DVD-RW within weeks of installing X3).
Whats to stop people ripping a pirated copy anyway. Personally I'd say avoid piracy and go OSS as far as posible.
As a Brit I must accept these charges we have been harbouring weapons of mass destruction since the cold war. We also have a policy of releasing terrorists from prison and our police recently apologised when they shot a totally innocent man who was suspected of being a terrorist. What depths have we sunk to?
Taking the piss means making fun of it and indeed the delay is due to a HURD port, or maybe not.
This is exactly the point. Scientists focus on what can be proved or disproved (like Genesis can and has been disproven to the extent in which it is absurd to suggest otherwise). Everything else is a matter of faith (at least where it doesn't conflict with the things that can be proved/disproved). It's not an assault on religion but for a scientist to say that I'm not going to consider this because of faith then they are no longer scientists, also a scientist has to go in with the position that if I can disprove my faith then my faith is wrong (and most scientists faith can't be disproved because they don't believe in Genesis etc, you won't find many who'd give a specific position on god because they know that specificity is the realm of science).
The key issue to remember when dealing with scientists is they will never accept doctrine on an area where there is evidence. For something to have scientific relevance you must be able to prove or disprove it either way. Thats not to say that God doesn't exist but the concept is one beyond proof and disproof. No scientific argument could ever prove or disprove God and its a nonsense to suggest otherwise. The most we can do is know how the universe was formed and if God exists then such evidence is all you truely know about him.
"Not at all- for without God, without Religion, without Duty to Family, Society, and the Future- Nietzsche was RIGHT. In the long run, we have nothing and are nothing, and nothing we do matters."
He certainly accepted that nihilism leads to nothing and that you need to take yourself through it with a leap of faith essentially but his solution was entirely different to yours (he was an atheist who believed in living his life to get as much joy as he could at the end of the day, you could call him decadent) while I agree with your premise I don't agree with the solution but then again its never about agreement which was the whole point. It's based entirely on faith its just whether you aim your faith at god or at whatever you decide. I've never argued against this, people are entirely justified to believe in god if they want to believe in god.
"The EU has too high of an unemployment rate- though they're ceratinly second for stability, they're almost as unbalanced as the United States is."
Which parts. the core of the EU economy isn't too bad, certainly the UK's unemployment rate is quite low (though worryingly rising at the moment if just slowly) and debt is nowhere near where it was when Blair came in (though again is increasing slowly) but we're probably the strongest economy in Europe currently. Anyway if we ever get rid of the CAP thats 440B that can actually be spent on things other than producing 100 times the food the world would ever need then dumping it on a big mountain.
The question is whether the new EU members will drag the established ones down. Certainly the EU has held back richer members in the past (in a form, everyone is better off but the poorer countries like Ireland and Belgium have gained the most).
Its equally posible they followed a Jesus that didn't claim to be a miracle worker and that the miracles grew with the telling and were exagerated in order to gain power for the few.
Its interesting, you make very similar arguments to Friedrich Nietzsche yet the conclusions drawn from both arguments are so massively opposed it shows the value of any attempt to reason on this level.
As for the US being crucial to the world economy. On whose measure. The US economy has been performing quite badly in recent times while the likes of growing economies like India and China are booming so much that the most conservative measures suggest China will have overtaken the US as the worlds largest economic superpower within 11 years. The US debt is growing much faster than anywhere else in the world even when the population size is taken into account, the EU economy is growing in quite a stable manner above predictions again this year and its enlarging it membership futher again which will bring a whole new market and politicians are beginning to talk about ending consumer patriotism which will make a futher boost over a very long period (consumer patriotism being the biggest drag on the EU economy after the bloody CAP).
True the US is facing the toughest period for a long time and I wish your country nothing but success, however to claim that the US is somehow crucial to the world economy is a stretch at best.
There are huge ruins all over Europe from the Roman empire. Hell some of the sewer systems they built still work today. There are more than a few artifacts and a few pieces of scripture, there are horrendous amounts of documents on things from the mundane to the extrodinary and there are forts and ruins everywhere. You want us to compare this to a book that was compiled long after anyone alive during the time of Christ was dead.
Because most Christians seemingly ignore that the entire point of Christ was because Jeudaism* was seemingly following a flawed version of what god wanted and that Jesus was sent in to replace the old testament** with the new testament.
The problem is the new*** testament is about loving thy neighbour and giving up wealth to help the poor and not judging lest you be judged. None of this fits into the politcal spectrum of these people.
*out of interest not what I believe, each religion is equal in my mind but that is essentially what Christianity was founded on.
**which is for the most part a direct translation of the teachings Jesus was preaching against.
***new as in replacement, as in the old is deprecated.
The problem is there is no way of proving 99% of the bible so scientifically it is irrelevant. Science demands evidence, a person proved the earth was round with evidence. Galileo proved the earth wasn't the center of the universe with more evidence (namely the phases of venus, and the moons of jupiter and he used the retrograde motion of mars as an arguement. All of it holds up as proof but the phases of Venus alone is enough to blow the old system out of the water). So the real question for a scientist is to prove that a certain part of the bible exists.
Most scientists who believe in god aren't Christians in the absolute fundamentalist sense of the word. Most of them accept the obvious, that most of the setup of organised religion was made at least in some part as a means of control and that the number of translations and revisions in the bible make it irrelevant since it bares no resemblence to the original text.
Faith in god on the other hand is completely beyond the realm of proof. Anyone who says prove to me god exists is an idiot. It can't be proved but it may well be posible so it isn't something that can be dealt with using the normal realms of science. I'm not religious but quite happily accept others position of belief in god because quite frankly I don't know either way.