Are you somehow arguing that installing a program not packaged for Windows on Windows is somehow easier than installing a program not packaged for Ubuntu on Ubuntu? Nope, I'm stating that installing most programs in Ubuntu is the same as was described in Arch, i.e. simpler than the original description of hunting down.deb files. "It" referred to installing programs in Ubuntu, which someone asked if it was more difficult than in Arch.
Reasonable intelligent supporters of marijuana legalization don't think it's harmless, they just think it's less harmful than alcohol Or less harmful than any other prescription drug. I've never smoked marijuana, and I don't really personally approve of people doing it just for recreation (not saying I would stop people from doing it in their homes, I would just wag my finger a bit), but if doctors say it will help their patients, I'd tend to believe them more than I would politicians. Remember, it's still illegal to use a prescription drug if you don't have a prescription for it.
In Arch, this is how you install software:
In a console ass root you type:
pacman -S package-name
Thats it!
I can't for a second believe it is any more difficult in ubuntu.
It isn't if you're installing something from the repository. The person you replied to intentionally described the two uncommon methods for installing programs in Debian/Ubuntu. Assuming pacman is a package management system similar to apt, your method wouldn't work if the package wasn't in the Arch software repositories, just like apt.
1) Make media easier to start using. Unfortunately, this is more of a legal matter in the United States. The two biggest issues I see with Ubuntu working perfectly for the average user right now are things that aren't really under the control of any member of the Ubuntu or Linux teams: media that requires a license to play and video drivers. AMD may end up being the solution to the video drivers problem, which would leave only media formats that the large media companies will probably never let go of.
So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end? Everyone knows that reptiles would be ruling the world now if it weren't for that meddling Chrono.
Yes, which is why we must put an end to government intervention. We have to move to a free market. A free market where every other week a backhoe is digging up your street so that yet another company can put down copper wires? I'm all for competition in service providers (if your only choices were Comcast and Verizon, wouldn't you be, too?), but just like electricity and water, you can't have a dozen different companies making physical connections to your home. I'd be interested in seeing if something like what's happened to electricity in some areas also happen with ISP's; separate the company (or even the local or state government) that manages the physical lines to your home from the service providers. In theory, this would allow new service providers to simply go to the line owners and say "I want to buy some bandwidth to resell to people." I don't know if it would work or not, but it doesn't seem like it could be any worse than what we have now.
Every person in this thread is going on and on about how obvious this is, but not one person has offered two pieces of prior art which when combined produce the claimed invention. Not one. Noone has ever done so in any of these threads. I would guess that the confirmation step was always considered necessary (not from a technical standpoint, but from a user standpoint). Nobody did it because nobody thought it was a good idea, not because they couldn't do it or didn't think of it.
How could there not have been an article or scholarly paper back in 1992 or whenever people think this existed that said, "hey you can buy stuff on the Internetz!!! and people can have a website save their infoZZZzz! so that someone can just take one action". Because there were already several Libraries of Congress worth of papers about transmitting data across networks and storing that data in a relational database (or any of several other flavors of persistent storage). Making that data be someone's address and credit card number is hardly worthy of a "scholarly paper" for anyone beyond a freshman Computer Science major.
Why can't they reject it on the grounds that software shouldn't be patentable? Because you (and many others) think that software shouldn't be patentable, yet there's no law explicitly saying so. Showing that something is obvious has a much firmer foundation in existing law than trying to convince judges and/or the USPTO that all software patents should be tossed out.
In all honesty she invited lethal force. Yup.
She was lucky they didnt use it. Yup.
She is stupid She's a student at MIT, so probably not really stupid, just severely lacking in common sense.
and deserves to be punished severely. Eh, I dunno about that. Giving her an $x000 fine (which may very well be severe for a college student) and a year or two of probation should be enough. She didn't cause any significant harm, so all the punishment needs to do is send a message to people to not strap electronic devices to their chests and walk into an airport.
If they didn't pin something on him he would be able to sue, no? No. If the police have reason to search his home, and a judge issues a search warrant, he can't sue the police, city, or anyone else, because they didn't do anything wrong. In fact, having his home searched and nothing incriminating found is far better than the alternative of having his home nuked from orbit, just to be sure.
Actually the blog has done CNN's trick (or is it Fox's trick?) in that they assert a fact that they cannot prove, and so had a question mark at the end. They haven't said the CRIA is responsible, they've ASKED if the CRIA is responsible. It's commonly used by all major media outlets now. The Daily Show dubbed the tactic Punctuation Punditry. I tried tagging a couple Slashdot articles that did this a while ago with "punctuationpunditry", but I don't think it worked.
Actually, I'm surprised the nut isn't cohosting a show with Nancy Grace yet, now that I think about it. Toss in Ann Coulter and you've got quality family entertainment.
In the US as long as you say, "IN MY OPINION alshithead regularly engages in producing child pornography", you would most likely be okay. That wouldn't work on a judge that's actually paying attention. Adding the phrase "in my opinion" does not magically turn a statement of fact into a statement of opinion. Producing child pornography is an action that either occurred or did not occur, making it a fact that can, in theory, be proven to be true. You might be able to get away with something like "He likes child pornography" or "He wishes he could make child pornography", since those statements are based on the person's beliefs/feelings, and there's no real way to argue against them other than saying "No I don't".
Let's be like China and make electricity the man's way - with coal! And let's go back to burning leaded gasoline so we don't have to fuck with this unleaded crap that limits engine compression. If we burn more leaded gasoline, maybe it will reduce the amount of lead available for paint on children's toys.
It either means that Congress has been too cowardly to commit to war, or that there hasn't been a legitimate reason to go to war in over 60 years, depending on who you ask. As for me, I just felt like adding a simple fact to the discussion.
Maybe they wouldn't be hacked so much if they used a secure operating system? Not even Linux can protect you from leaving your office laptop (with a root password of "password") in your unlocked car in a high-crime neighborhood.
Slashdot Mirror
pacman -S package-name
Thats it!
I can't for a second believe it is any more difficult in ubuntu.
It isn't if you're installing something from the repository. The person you replied to intentionally described the two uncommon methods for installing programs in Debian/Ubuntu. Assuming pacman is a package management system similar to apt, your method wouldn't work if the package wasn't in the Arch software repositories, just like apt.Maybe we should change that foot icon?
Were you referring to the internet, or the pr0n? Or Slashdot?
Prove me wrong. Show me a reputable web page that proves that elephants don't love them. Check Wikipedia. Its article on elephants is never wrong.
Did you really just call the Internet intelligent? Have you actually looked at the Internet lately?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
It either means that Congress has been too cowardly to commit to war, or that there hasn't been a legitimate reason to go to war in over 60 years, depending on who you ask. As for me, I just felt like adding a simple fact to the discussion.
The last time the United States was involved in an actual, declared war was 1945.