Ahh, but who cares if he switches or not? Since when are we in the marketing department? If he likes Windows, but wants to use KDE, then I have no problem with that.
If he likes Linux, but wanted to run MS Word, then it would be nice if he could do that too.
Why do we give a fsck what OS people run? Do you get a commission for every MS user that switches to Linux?
"After revising the content of the course and adding real-world examples, the company says the materials are now more useful, and have "
Somebody says "I don't believe in killing children" you can't just remove the "don't" and quote them as "I believe in killing children" you know. Lets try to get the whole quote next time shall we?
Re:Just use BSD or Linux or OS X, forget about win
on
Bugzilla on Windows?
·
· Score: 1
Question: How can I do FOO on Windows?
Slashdotter: Use Linux and ditch Windows!
Way to just ignore the parameters of the question. When asked "what's 4/3?" in school did you just change the question to "4/2" to make it easier an expect it to be correct?
That said, I agree with you. The notion that Gentoo's pathetically manual install should stay that way as some sort of right of passage to gain quality support and maintain an intelligent community is pretentious, arrogant, elitist, and the sheer embodiment of what's wrong with the Linux community IMHO.
Have you ever been in the #gentoo IRC forum? Very friendly and helpful group. Not elitist at all IMHO. Lets try not to bash the Gentoo folks eh? At least we don't post "Get a Mac!" to questions about "How do I do FOO under Linux or Windows?"
Wow... I can understand where people are coming from when they are against guns (especially automatic weaponry), but being against bullet proof vests? That's insane!
200 miles on 1 hour is good, but still not good enough. I was traveling a lot for business about 300+ miles in a day. I'd hate to have to drive 200 miles, then wait an hour at some charging station just to complete the rest of the trip...
Until then, might you give your countrymen a bit of credit and restrict your comments about being a weak to the PM? If you don't like Blair, that's one thing. Maybe it's just me, but I find it in poor taste to say the rest of the nation simply yields to the US.
Hmmm. I respectfully disagree. The Constitution was written originally to be an absolute minimum, with the ability to expand. I don't think it's outdated at all.
The US was/is very lucky in one regard. We had brilliant fore-fathers. Scholars of government in many ways. I happen to agree with their estimate of "minimum" rights.
Yes, the world has changed. A lot. Not just in the last 4 years though. Countless times I'm sure it would have been easier to just "ignore the constitution", but we didn't and we're the better for it. There *are* ways to work within those rights, and still maintain a secure society. I just don't think the various law enforcements have given it enough thought (why try? It's easier just to change the rules).
I think he's just sick of all the US bashing that goes on here. The US is like a Hollywood Star. Sure, others may be in the same show, but nobody seems to pay attention to them. And lest we should make a small mistake, it's all over everyones news (nothing feels quite as good as schadenfreude). A supporting actor could be a crack-whore, but who gives a shit?
Other countries have similar injustices and intolerances (France immediately comes to mind - try selling some WWII stuff that has swastika's on it there sometime). But nobody brings those up off-topic on an article about China. Because they're not the one everyone wants to see fail. The US is...
So, if these sats really are primarily for internal surveillance, anything "over areas of significant interest" probably isn't going to be geosync. Unless you're really into rainforests, most of the equator isn't that interesting.
d
Sure, the cameras need to be over the equator to be geosync. But who said they had to look straight down? The US has several weather sats that are geosync...
Marriage is a right. It's recognized by state and federal laws.
Lets take a step back.
Marriage historically has had limitations on "allowed membership" so to speak. It began as an institution of religion. Typically one would need to belong to said religion to be allowed to marry someone of that religion. It was a very religious thing.
The greeks allowed homosexual relationships, but they never (AFAIK) allowed for homosexual marriages.
Fast-forward to today. It's more of a state recognized thing, with some religious undertones. I myself am of no religion, but will be getting married next year. So I can understand the view that marriage is less an institution of religion now.
So what *is* marriage? Well, I guess it's just a state and socially recognized union of two people in love. *Who* those two people are, and whether it's exclusive to those two people) is up to the society and state. I would wager more the former myself. Though due to some finangling, "married" has also developed legal and tax status.
Historically, yes, the religious of this country have imparted their view of marriage on the rest. But that's because most of the nation was christian. And why not? A society must have some common ground to agree on "right" and "wrong". Now I'm not saying it should necessarily be legislated, but any society needs a basis for what is and what is not acceptable.
It's curtailing the rights of those people in order to codify the moral beliefs of third parties into U.S. law. This isn't about making something legal. It's about making it illegal. That's an important distinction.
That's true. But we do it all the time. It's illegal to walk around in public nude, to wear offensive clothing in public, and many other public displays. Society does need a common set of accepted practices IMHO, and often the government is the way it is done. Sure, the US is a bit more "puritan" than other nations, but we choose to be so. Though given that Massachusetts now allows for same-sex marriage...
Homosexuality is common in nature as you can see in this article. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, from swans to apes to penguins.
That's true. We see it in humans too. But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature.
To tell you the truth, this is a subject I'm still not totally sure on. I've gone back and forth a few times on it. At the moment I'm having a hard time justifying same-sex marriage though. It *is* a change (not just since the 1990's though - when were any homosexuals allowed to marry before that? I can only accept it as having been "okay" if anybody succeeded). I've known gays, had some as friends and coworkers. But I still don't think it's something society should accept. As you say, polygamy, and other "oddities" are right down the same path.
If it is a genetic predisposition, that may change things. It's difficult to say, and I'm not sure that it can be proved. Some people just like strange things, and at some level one may be genetically predisposed to BDSM.
Well, some things to think about... Thanks for the discussion.:-) No hard feelings.
A pursuit of knowledge != preaching dogma to children.
I thought that was pretty clear. Would you call a crazy nut in the street declaring the end of the world a philosophical teacher? Or one asking if you've "found Jesus?" Would you want either of them teaching your children?
How in the hell hard is it to write software that counts votes? I mean, sure, it's a distributed app and all. But fscking distributed.net wrote an app that uses thousands of unreliable machines to crack encryption for crists sake! This really shouldn't be too difficult by comparison!
Unless, of course, there's a lot more that I'm just not thinking of? Sure, it's not *trivial*, but it should be going a lot better than it is.
It wasn't a "little slip." It was a carefully considered word that accurately describes people who try to oppress gays -- as you are advocating. I'm deadly serious and if you won't answer me, it's because your arguments don't hold water.
Then it was an incorrect carefully considered word. I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I wish to oppress them. I don't think I've ever even stated my support or nonsupport of gay marriage yet. Lets not reduce the argument to mud slinging.
No, it was not a new right. The existing right to marry was simply denied to mixed race couples just as it is now being denied to gay couples.
Well, then we're disagreeing on semantics here. You think "foo" is a right, and nothing else defines it as such (please explain how same-sex marriage is a "right" but my example of my religion requiring incest is not). I'm saying "foo" is a right, so long as it's legal. I'm NOT, however, saying that the law is always correct, so don't make this mistake.
BTW, a law that states "Marriage is a union between one man and one union" is discriminating against more than just homosexuals. How about polygomy(sp?)? Marriage with animals? Inanimate objects? Dead people? etc.
So we can make insulin injections illegal and then claim that it's not denying a right to medical care to diabetics because insulin is illegal for everyone. A damned good analogy to what you're claiming.
It is a good analogy. But we're quibling here. In your analogy it's a right denied to *everyone*. Denying the ownership of automatic weapons to all citizens is not *just* denying the right to the NRA. Nor has the NRA every claimed it was as they'd be called nuts if they did ("You're discriminating against people who want to own guns!").
Then just why do you want to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Do you feel threatened by such marriages? Do you feel that your religious beliefs should be made the law of the land? What is your motivation.
This I will answer, if you answer the bit about polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. (what makes same sex marriage "okay" but not those?). This may surprise you, but I'm not forcing my religion on anybody. I have no religion (I'm not even baptised, consider myself agnostic). Marriage is historic and *natural*. I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God). The very fact that we populate through heterosexual relations is proof enough of this. I'm not saying that homosexuality is *wrong* per se, but that society shouldn't endorse it. IOW homosexuality is a sexual deviance (like BDSM, etc.). This is a little difficult to explain in a short time through text. But try not to take this as much more "mean spirited" than I mean it. It should be "accepted" as okay, but not codified as a right ("You have the right to free speech, to bear arms, and to have same-gender sex").
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, but who cares if he switches or not? Since when are we in the marketing department? If he likes Windows, but wants to use KDE, then I have no problem with that.
If he likes Linux, but wanted to run MS Word, then it would be nice if he could do that too.
Why do we give a fsck what OS people run? Do you get a commission for every MS user that switches to Linux?
Lets play connect the dots!
"After revising the content of the course and adding real-world examples, the company says the materials are now more useful, and have "
Somebody says "I don't believe in killing children" you can't just remove the "don't" and quote them as "I believe in killing children" you know. Lets try to get the whole quote next time shall we?
Question: How can I do FOO on Windows?
Slashdotter: Use Linux and ditch Windows!
Way to just ignore the parameters of the question. When asked "what's 4/3?" in school did you just change the question to "4/2" to make it easier an expect it to be correct?
http://www.pryan.org/mozilla/site/TheOneKEA/tabpre fs/
That said, I agree with you. The notion that Gentoo's pathetically manual install should stay that way as some sort of right of passage to gain quality support and maintain an intelligent community is pretentious, arrogant, elitist, and the sheer embodiment of what's wrong with the Linux community IMHO.
Have you ever been in the #gentoo IRC forum? Very friendly and helpful group. Not elitist at all IMHO. Lets try not to bash the Gentoo folks eh? At least we don't post "Get a Mac!" to questions about "How do I do FOO under Linux or Windows?"
OT:
Wow... I can understand where people are coming from when they are against guns (especially automatic weaponry), but being against bullet proof vests? That's insane!
We have freedom of speech and expression the last I heard.
Those freedoms apply to the brothers of assassinated presidents too, yes?
200 miles on 1 hour is good, but still not good enough. I was traveling a lot for business about 300+ miles in a day. I'd hate to have to drive 200 miles, then wait an hour at some charging station just to complete the rest of the trip...
No, your second response was the bit that made you a jerk. The first comment was just nit-picking.
This last post makes you a defensive jerk, and a troll. HANL.
Or you can just be a jerk. Settle down, I wasn't insulting your man-hood. Just pointing out that you were nit-picking a bit.
Until then, might you give your countrymen a bit of credit and restrict your comments about being a weak to the PM? If you don't like Blair, that's one thing. Maybe it's just me, but I find it in poor taste to say the rest of the nation simply yields to the US.
No, but you're nit-picking. It was the assumption of the poster that others would (and he's right).
What a defeatist attitude.
You do your nation proud...
It's US bashing to bring it up off-topic on a story about China.
A: China has some faults eh?
B: Yes, but the US does also! Look at what the US has done! My god the US sucks.
A: What about other nations?
B: Hey, I'm talkin' about the US here!
Way to off-topic bash the US with the pretense of looking like you're on-topic.
BTW, Europe has this ability also. But that would make the US seem less evil wouldn't it?
Hmmm. I respectfully disagree. The Constitution was written originally to be an absolute minimum, with the ability to expand. I don't think it's outdated at all.
The US was/is very lucky in one regard. We had brilliant fore-fathers. Scholars of government in many ways. I happen to agree with their estimate of "minimum" rights.
Yes, the world has changed. A lot. Not just in the last 4 years though. Countless times I'm sure it would have been easier to just "ignore the constitution", but we didn't and we're the better for it. There *are* ways to work within those rights, and still maintain a secure society. I just don't think the various law enforcements have given it enough thought (why try? It's easier just to change the rules).
I think he's just sick of all the US bashing that goes on here. The US is like a Hollywood Star. Sure, others may be in the same show, but nobody seems to pay attention to them. And lest we should make a small mistake, it's all over everyones news (nothing feels quite as good as schadenfreude). A supporting actor could be a crack-whore, but who gives a shit?
Other countries have similar injustices and intolerances (France immediately comes to mind - try selling some WWII stuff that has swastika's on it there sometime). But nobody brings those up off-topic on an article about China. Because they're not the one everyone wants to see fail. The US is...
So, if these sats really are primarily for internal surveillance, anything "over areas of significant interest" probably isn't going to be geosync. Unless you're really into rainforests, most of the equator isn't that interesting.
d Sure, the cameras need to be over the equator to be geosync. But who said they had to look straight down? The US has several weather sats that are geosync...
If you mean by that that they were concentrated in the Maginot Line, you would be wrong.
No, I didn't. I meant they were between Germany and their goal of world domination at the time. It was figurative.
No no no no! He just needs Gentoo! All anyone needs is Gentoo!
How's it feel to be responded to by a zealot? Seriously though, if VMWare won't cut it, what makes you think VPC will?
A child is a school to learn, not to determine whether their teacher is lying or not.
Marriage is a right. It's recognized by state and federal laws.
:-) No hard feelings.
Lets take a step back.
Marriage historically has had limitations on "allowed membership" so to speak. It began as an institution of religion. Typically one would need to belong to said religion to be allowed to marry someone of that religion. It was a very religious thing.
The greeks allowed homosexual relationships, but they never (AFAIK) allowed for homosexual marriages.
Fast-forward to today. It's more of a state recognized thing, with some religious undertones. I myself am of no religion, but will be getting married next year. So I can understand the view that marriage is less an institution of religion now.
So what *is* marriage? Well, I guess it's just a state and socially recognized union of two people in love. *Who* those two people are, and whether it's exclusive to those two people) is up to the society and state. I would wager more the former myself. Though due to some finangling, "married" has also developed legal and tax status.
Historically, yes, the religious of this country have imparted their view of marriage on the rest. But that's because most of the nation was christian. And why not? A society must have some common ground to agree on "right" and "wrong". Now I'm not saying it should necessarily be legislated, but any society needs a basis for what is and what is not acceptable.
It's curtailing the rights of those people in order to codify the moral beliefs of third parties into U.S. law. This isn't about making something legal. It's about making it illegal. That's an important distinction.
That's true. But we do it all the time. It's illegal to walk around in public nude, to wear offensive clothing in public, and many other public displays. Society does need a common set of accepted practices IMHO, and often the government is the way it is done. Sure, the US is a bit more "puritan" than other nations, but we choose to be so. Though given that Massachusetts now allows for same-sex marriage...
Homosexuality is common in nature as you can see in this article. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, from swans to apes to penguins.
That's true. We see it in humans too. But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature.
To tell you the truth, this is a subject I'm still not totally sure on. I've gone back and forth a few times on it. At the moment I'm having a hard time justifying same-sex marriage though. It *is* a change (not just since the 1990's though - when were any homosexuals allowed to marry before that? I can only accept it as having been "okay" if anybody succeeded). I've known gays, had some as friends and coworkers. But I still don't think it's something society should accept. As you say, polygamy, and other "oddities" are right down the same path.
If it is a genetic predisposition, that may change things. It's difficult to say, and I'm not sure that it can be proved. Some people just like strange things, and at some level one may be genetically predisposed to BDSM.
Well, some things to think about... Thanks for the discussion.
A pursuit of knowledge != preaching dogma to children.
I thought that was pretty clear. Would you call a crazy nut in the street declaring the end of the world a philosophical teacher? Or one asking if you've "found Jesus?" Would you want either of them teaching your children?
You're exactly right.
How in the hell hard is it to write software that counts votes? I mean, sure, it's a distributed app and all. But fscking distributed.net wrote an app that uses thousands of unreliable machines to crack encryption for crists sake! This really shouldn't be too difficult by comparison!
Unless, of course, there's a lot more that I'm just not thinking of? Sure, it's not *trivial*, but it should be going a lot better than it is.
It wasn't a "little slip." It was a carefully considered word that accurately describes people who try to oppress gays -- as you are advocating. I'm deadly serious and if you won't answer me, it's because your arguments don't hold water.
Then it was an incorrect carefully considered word. I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I wish to oppress them. I don't think I've ever even stated my support or nonsupport of gay marriage yet. Lets not reduce the argument to mud slinging.
No, it was not a new right. The existing right to marry was simply denied to mixed race couples just as it is now being denied to gay couples.
Well, then we're disagreeing on semantics here. You think "foo" is a right, and nothing else defines it as such (please explain how same-sex marriage is a "right" but my example of my religion requiring incest is not). I'm saying "foo" is a right, so long as it's legal. I'm NOT, however, saying that the law is always correct, so don't make this mistake.
BTW, a law that states "Marriage is a union between one man and one union" is discriminating against more than just homosexuals. How about polygomy(sp?)? Marriage with animals? Inanimate objects? Dead people? etc.
So we can make insulin injections illegal and then claim that it's not denying a right to medical care to diabetics because insulin is illegal for everyone. A damned good analogy to what you're claiming.
It is a good analogy. But we're quibling here. In your analogy it's a right denied to *everyone*. Denying the ownership of automatic weapons to all citizens is not *just* denying the right to the NRA. Nor has the NRA every claimed it was as they'd be called nuts if they did ("You're discriminating against people who want to own guns!").
Then just why do you want to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Do you feel threatened by such marriages? Do you feel that your religious beliefs should be made the law of the land? What is your motivation.
This I will answer, if you answer the bit about polygamy, beastiality, incest, etc. (what makes same sex marriage "okay" but not those?). This may surprise you, but I'm not forcing my religion on anybody. I have no religion (I'm not even baptised, consider myself agnostic). Marriage is historic and *natural*. I don't consider homosexuality to be as nature intended (nevermind God). The very fact that we populate through heterosexual relations is proof enough of this. I'm not saying that homosexuality is *wrong* per se, but that society shouldn't endorse it. IOW homosexuality is a sexual deviance (like BDSM, etc.). This is a little difficult to explain in a short time through text. But try not to take this as much more "mean spirited" than I mean it. It should be "accepted" as okay, but not codified as a right ("You have the right to free speech, to bear arms, and to have same-gender sex").