Slashdot Mirror

The US tried to separate all aspects of Political leadership from Religion because you end up with the policies such as you had in England where a Lord had the right to bang a newly wed wife before the Husband

O RLY?.

or steal your property in the name of religion.

In the name of religion? Srsly? Citation please that it was "in the name of religion" rather than "in the name of I have more people with swords or guns than you do"?

http://www.google.com/search?q=lg+5%22+fullhd&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

lg has already demoed such screen.

The Girl With the Silver Eyes is a good intro due to good and simple vocabulary explained in the book and a reasonably compelling story that is relatable.
But, as with all recommendations for children, I strongly advise any parent to read the book themselves before handing it over to their kid, because a parent may not know everything about their child, but they are still the best judge of skill level and censor for the inappropriate.

ok, I'm back, and I thought I'de share this with you: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=areola&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1600&bih=1099&tbm=isch&tbnid=3axdD15iBWbapM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gfmer.ch/selected_images_v2/detail_list.php%3Fcat1%3D2%26cat3%3D1403%26stype%3Dd&docid=19wEwHRMq6wN_M&imgurl=http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/figures/1752-1947-4-22-1-l.jpg&w=1004&h=678&ei=yiXiT6T4AYyi8gT2uJ2GCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=196&vpy=458&dur=447&hovh=171&hovw=243&tx=125&ty=79&sig=112669268268485749733&page=1&tbnh=156&tbnw=208&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0,i:134

Thanks a lot asshole!

My son is 8 years old. I'd love to get him interested in science-fiction, but most of the books I can think of seem to be targeted to older kids/adults

Huh. Shame there's not some vast repository of information where you could search for this.

http://www.google.com/search?q=science+fiction+novels+kids

Here's our current list of major domains being exploited by active phishing scams. Notice who's at the top of the list. Google.

We've been generating that list for years. It's based on PhishTank data, updated every 3 hours, and uses Open Directory to decide if a site is "major". 46 domains are on the list today. 9 have been on the list since 2011 or earlier. One has been on the list since 2010 - Google. Google is the last free hosting service unable to clean up their phishing problem. MSN, Yahoo, and various free hosting services have been successful at aggressively cleaning up phishing problems, and haven't been on this list, other than briefly, for years.

Here's the oldest phishing attack hosted by Google, up since 2010: "Free Habbo Coins. Email your username and password to..."

For years, Google didn't realize that Google Spreadsheets could be used to host phishing sites. They finally caught on, and there's now a "report abuse" button on spreadsheets. Most, but not all, of the spreadsheet-hosted phishing sites have been taken down.

If anybody from Google is reading this, go over to your abuse department and apply a clue stick. It should embarrass someone that Google is the most clueless free hosting provider in the world about phishing.

Google stopped dealing with abuse on their own systems over a year ago. They don't correct any abuse complaints at all anymore. For example, if you take down a phishing site, there is always going to be a drop email somewhere in the php code of the phishing page. The stolen credentials get sent to this email address. If you report this illegal email address to google, they ignore it. These drop email addresses stay up and allow phishers to profit from their phishing campaigns for very very long periods of time. There are a number of times that this problem has been raised with google. They are always answered with, go to this page and report it there. Gmail abuse admins do absolutely nothing about things reported through this form. The only thing that happened is that they adjusted the form so that it just flat out rejects anything that does not have a header. So it is now IMPOSSIBLE to report drop emails to google. Additionally, google has a side channel abuse email "trusted.abuse.reports@google.com". Even if you report this type of abuse to that address, you get a autoresponse saying thanks for the report, but they do nothing to suspend or stop the abuse that it reported. I'm under the impression that Google has given up monitoring any of the channels that they have to receive abuse reports.

Google stopped dealing with abuse on their own systems over a year ago. They don't correct any abuse complaints at all anymore. For example, if you take down a phishing site, there is always going to be a drop email somewhere in the php code of the phishing page. The stolen credentials get sent to this email address. If you report this illegal email address to google, they ignore it. These drop email addresses stay up and allow phishers to profit from their phishing campaigns for very very long periods of time. There are a number of times that this problem has been raised with google. They are always answered with, go to this page and report it there. Gmail abuse admins do absolutely nothing about things reported through this form. The only thing that happened is that they adjusted the form so that it just flat out rejects anything that does not have a header. So it is now IMPOSSIBLE to report drop emails to google. Additionally, google has a side channel abuse email "trusted.abuse.reports@google.com". Even if you report this type of abuse to that address, you get a autoresponse saying thanks for the report, but they do nothing to suspend or stop the abuse that it reported. I'm under the impression that Google has given up monitoring any of the channels that they have to receive abuse reports.

Google stopped dealing with abuse on their own systems over a year ago. They don't correct any abuse complaints at all anymore. For example, if you take down a phishing site, there is always going to be a drop email somewhere in the php code of the phishing page. The stolen credentials get sent to this email address. If you report this illegal email address to google, they ignore it. These drop email addresses stay up and allow phishers to profit from their phishing campaigns for very very long periods of time. There are a number of times that this problem has been raised with google. They are always answered with, go to this page and report it there. Gmail abuse admins do absolutely nothing about things reported through this form. The only thing that happened is that they adjusted the form so that it just flat out rejects anything that does not have a header. So it is now IMPOSSIBLE to report drop emails to google. Additionally, google has a side channel abuse email "trusted.abuse.reports@google.com". Even if you report this type of abuse to that address, you get a autoresponse saying thanks for the report, but they do nothing to suspend or stop the abuse that it reported. I'm under the impression that Google has given up monitoring any of the channels that they have to receive abuse reports.

Well for starters it's open source so you can see for yourself.

I'd guess that the malware detection is actually performed by servers at Google. That would make more sense (to me, anyway) than trying to embed the code in the browsers where malware authors can examine it, and where updates require a browser release.

Er, I guess I should have clicked your link before shooting my mouth off, rather than after :-)

Er, I guess I should have read the code at the link you provided before correcting myself... since it appears that it does indeed connect to "safe browser servers" at Google.

I think I'll just shut up now, even if further perusal shows this comment to be wrong as well.

Well for starters it's open source so you can see for yourself.

I'd guess that the malware detection is actually performed by servers at Google. That would make more sense (to me, anyway) than trying to embed the code in the browsers where malware authors can examine it, and where updates require a browser release.

Er, I guess I should have clicked your link before shooting my mouth off, rather than after :-)

Well for starters it's open source so you can see for yourself.

I'd guess that the malware detection is actually performed by servers at Google. That would make more sense (to me, anyway) than trying to embed the code in the browsers where malware authors can examine it, and where updates require a browser release.

And whose fault would that be? Time for a dose of cold hard truth boys and girls, if the community would have had a living shitfit at the half baked crap coming from the devs, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, crap like companies having to release new drivers even for old stuff because Linus and the kernel fiddlers kept breaking shit, the DE wars, Pulseaudio, repos full of half baked software with zero QC or QA, well then maybe you'd have enough marketshare that MSFT wouldn't dare!

When Shuttleworth flushes millions down the toilet and Linux never breaks single digits and most places have it close to the same 2% its been in years, when you are offering your product for free with no strings attached and people would STILL rather steal the other guy's product, when forum hunts and CLI copypasta is treated as par for the course on update, when your forums are filled with "Ur a M$ Shill!" and "Works4me" because a vocal segment of your users treat your product as a cult instead of an OS? Well folks its time to suck it up and take a good long hard look in the mirror.

I would STRONGLY suggest you read these two informative articles, the first by one of the RH devs, and then you will know why FLOSS is so easily blocked with so few giving a shit. The second one has over a hundred links pointing out serious long term problems that are either 1.-swept under the rug, 2.-Ignored, or 3.-Treated as hearasay if you even bring them up. I'm sure this post will be buried by those that treated FLOSS as a religion, aka the FOSSies as I've often called them, because their answer to everything that isn't "Gee Biff, isn't FLOSS Swell, it sure is Skip, RMS is a God among men and M$ burns babies!" is treated like crapping on the Baby Jesus, but in the end the numbers don't lie. if there hadn't been so much infighting, reinventing the wheel, NIH, ignoring of obvious issues, and using the fact that it was free as an excuse to settle for half ass? Well then frankly the numbers would be such that MSFT wouldn't dare block it. the fact that they can and most of the planet couldn't care less just shows a failing in FLOSS to give the people what they want and to offer a better product as far as I'm concerned.

Well for starters it's open source so you can see for yourself.

You have rights to the air above your land as far up as you can occupy or use - depending upon local zoning regulations.
You can also sue anyone who tresspasses in your airspace, so you could probably sue Google with their low flying drone at 200', but not American Airlines at 40,000'

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/airspace-right-lawyers.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19460601&id=eBoaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2585,35429

Why did this get modded down? I came in here to say pretty much exactly the same thing.
Personally, I use Video DownloadHelper because it applies more generally than just to YouTube; But search the FF addons for "YouTube" and you'll see at least a dozen plugins that will let you download whatever the hell you want.

And one extension to download/convert stuff from Youtube for Google's Chrome browser (and the FOSS Chromium browser it's derived from) is even supplied by Google/Youtube itself.

I don't see what hair styles have to do with anything...

oh really?
explains a lot, actually.

Google uses Chrome to track user's browsing habits for the purpose of targeted advertising.

This is simply not true and never has been. If you are interested in the facts, the Chrome Privacy Team thoroughly explains every feature that can be configured to exchange information with external services: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html

LEDs come in Jumbo sizes.

You'd think, wouldn't you! Let's find out!

If you wanted to, you could go to Google and run a search for MySpamPC. But you wouldn't find anything useful because I just made it up.

Hmm, guess not.

True... and Apple is becoming famous for making us pay for what we already have, and as a consequence, stifling any growth that would come from existing technology. They are an embarrasment to tech, even if they do put out a shiny well crafted piece.

WTF are you talking about? Are you really serious?

Let's break your unsubstantiated remarks one phrase at a time:

Apple is becoming famous for making us pay for what we already have

What are you talking about? iTunes? Seriously? And how is Apple different in that regard from, say Amazon? You don't have to repurchase your 30 year old copy of Sgt. Peppers, you could have sucked it right up into iTunes (or whatever player you wanted) from your barely-playable vinyl copy (if your turntable still worked...).

Rip. Mix. Burn. Remember who's ad campaign that was?

stifling any growth that would come from existing technology.

You're serious, right? You do realize, of course, that you're talking about the same company who won a Grammy Award in 2002 for "outstanding technical contributions to the music industry and recording field. This is the first Technical GRAMMY ever awarded to a PC company."

How is that stifling growth that would come from existing technology? The technology existed; Apple just made it accessible to many, many more people. How is that "stifling" anything?

They are an embarrasment to tech

Again; you simply cannot be serious!

Not only is this yet another wholly unsubstantiated statement; but, it is belied by even your own very next statement, and I quote: "even if they do put out a shiny well crafted piece." (emphasis mine).

Do I really have to say anything more? The first and second clauses of your sentence cannot both be true. And considering the several tech industry awards they have received, I would venture that your statement about them being an "embarrassment" to anything is quite laughable, and in fact is an embarrassment... To you!

The United States of America objected, and barred the Chinese from ever stepping into the ISS

I was about to put a "[citation needed]".
Then, changed my mind and went after the info myself (is posting it "karma whoring"?)

Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad.

None of the above.
Report after report has been written explaining, in great detail, the stupidity of attacking Iran.

Iran is kind of like Cold War Russia: it has lots of proxies that can act independantly.
Attacking Iran would spark a regional war against US allies and assets that would be nearly impossible to stop with military force.
Even the Mossad's former chief thinks attacking Iran is a bad idea

http://www.google.com/search?q=attacking+iran+bad+idea
Almost all the people saying "attacking Iran is a good idea" are from hard right think tanks &/or are neoconservative war hawks.br./And their record on foreign policy speaks for itself.

Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad.

None of the above.
Report after report has been written explaining, in great detail, the stupidity of attacking Iran.

Iran is kind of like Cold War Russia: it has lots of proxies that can act independantly.
Attacking Iran would spark a regional war against US allies and assets that would be nearly impossible to stop with military force.
Even the Mossad's former chief thinks attacking Iran is a bad idea

http://www.google.com/search?q=attacking+iran+bad+idea
Almost all the people saying "attacking Iran is a good idea" are from hard right think tanks &/or are neoconservative war hawks.br./And their record on foreign policy speaks for itself.

"International politics changed massively when we invented weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly wars between countries that both wield weapons of mass destruction became a realistic impossibility. MAD as a concept did something that nothing did in our entire history - mandate peace."

A related essay I wrote: "Problems of the MAD doctrine, their consequences, and positive alternatives"
http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/msg/e34f9013282af9d7
"The policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) with strategic nuclear weapons policy is based on decision makers being rational and not wanting their own country destroyed (were they to use their nuclear weapons and receive reprisals or even just spreading radiation). This essay explores a few reasons why this MAD policy will ultimately fail due to irrationality or other reasons for bad decisions by humans or the bureaucracies they inhabit. This reasoning is also applicable to understanding why any similar policies about bioweapons or drones or nanotech and so on could also fail. Then the consequences of this are explored, and some alternatives suggested (including sharing information leading to healthier local communities and ultimately creating space habitats) ...."

Confirmed American plagiarists U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin are still enjoying successful careers. So it seems that at least in the U.S. plagiarism is somewhat tolerated.

Why stop at Biden, Obama seems to have his hand in it occasionally as well... How does that saying go again: great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ... My guess is that most politicians fall into the later camp...

Confirmed American plagiarists U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin are still enjoying successful careers. So it seems that at least in the U.S. plagiarism is somewhat tolerated.

Why stop at Biden, Obama seems to have his hand in it occasionally as well... How does that saying go again: great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ... My guess is that most politicians fall into the later camp...

Blame? really? Last time I checked, people have a free choice as to what field they want to work/study in. If women choose not to do CS then its entirely their choice. No one is to blame.

Spoken like the ignorant white middle class male you most likely are. Last time you checked? That would be never, you're not paying any fucking attention.

I've heard the same thing at the office from various women, you aren't going to attract quality workers to a field by overselling it or forcing them into it. While people tend to agree that the IT fields in have an overall image problem, it's also not something that is going to change over night either as cultural changes require time. Furthermore, most women who are still college, that I have talked to also indicate they aren't exactly too interesting in working in a high stress field with the perception of mandatory overtime. Needless to say they are generally aren't interested in medical fields for the same reason.

Because those are for the most part low-status, low-paying servant style jobs.

I know a number of nurses and healthcare workers who would love to argue that point with you. But since we are looking at the bulk of the list as opposed to piecemeal, if you really look at that list, they are all jobs with fixed schedules and generally don't require overtime or place unexpected demands upon workers. In contrast, if you look at the lists of fields that are dominated by men (my apologizes for the horrible link, but it is the second hit on Google, most of the other links seem to be about men going into fields that are traditionally dominated by women, or about women breaking into men's fields as opposed to a strict listing) you will note they tend to be higher stress, more physically demanding, or have unpredictable schedules which most women seem to avoid.

It is in English. At least that is what is being taught to every one of our children in the public school system, and has been for at least the last 40 years.

I explain how people's logic is flawed by misuse of an overloaded word, and you try to tell me I'm wrong by example of using bad logic via confusion of the overloaded word.

"The sky is green." is a fact when using the word fact in the fact vs. opinion form. "The sky is green" is not a fact when used in the fact vs. fiction form.

This is no different than the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" confusion.

Confirmed American plagiarists U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin are still enjoying successful careers. So it seems that at least in the U.S. plagiarism is somewhat tolerated.

Confirmed American plagiarists U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin are still enjoying successful careers. So it seems that at least in the U.S. plagiarism is somewhat tolerated.

Position 20 onwards in the youtube video control here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Attt4dVu0U&feature=related

* Where Bert64's "FUD" words not only got him floored, but also "pinned" under the weight of his own erroneous words (Thor's Hammer)... & now he can't get out from under them... lol, see my 'p.s.' below!

APK

P.S.=>

"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367

B.S. to the above quote from you! Who/what/when/where/how/why? These links below disprove your words with ease:

A.) Governments
B.) Educational institutions
C.) HACKER/CRACKER types

That have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)... and?

Yes - They definitely have DIFFERENT GOALS!

---

GOVERNMENTS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1

---

COLLEGES WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1

---

CRACKERS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

---

BOTTOM-LINE: YOU ARE OFF/WRONG BERT64 - period... & I floored your attempt @ "FUD", as-per-usual, & YOU KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as is per my own "inimitable style::

This?

This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"

You made it so!

Now, watching you *trying* to get out from under the weight of your errors by mincing words that don't change a damn thing you initially stated in falsehoolds shown above? Priceless...

( & a LOT like watching the Hulk in that video trying to lift Mjolnir, after Thor "WAPS" him with it, lol!)

... apkmany independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide."

Position 20 onwards in the youtube video control here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Attt4dVu0U&feature=related

* Where Bert64's "FUD" words not only got him floored, but also "pinned" under the weight of his own erroneous words (Thor's Hammer)... & now he can't get out from under them... lol, see my 'p.s.' below!

APK

P.S.=>

"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367

B.S. to the above quote from you! Who/what/when/where/how/why? These links below disprove your words with ease:

A.) Governments
B.) Educational institutions
C.) HACKER/CRACKER types

That have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)... and?

Yes - They definitely have DIFFERENT GOALS!

---

GOVERNMENTS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1

---

COLLEGES WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1

---

CRACKERS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

---

BOTTOM-LINE: YOU ARE OFF/WRONG BERT64 - period... & I floored your attempt @ "FUD", as-per-usual, & YOU KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as is per my own "inimitable style::

This?

This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"

You made it so!

Now, watching you *trying* to get out from under the weight of your errors by mincing words that don't change a damn thing you initially stated in falsehoolds shown above? Priceless...

( & a LOT like watching the Hulk in that video trying to lift Mjolnir, after Thor "WAPS" him with it, lol!)

... apkmany independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide."

Position 20 onwards in the youtube video control here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Attt4dVu0U&feature=related

* Where Bert64's "FUD" words not only got him floored, but also "pinned" under the weight of his own erroneous words (Thor's Hammer)... & now he can't get out from under them... lol, see my 'p.s.' below!

APK

P.S.=>

"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367

B.S. to the above quote from you! Who/what/when/where/how/why? These links below disprove your words with ease:

A.) Governments
B.) Educational institutions
C.) HACKER/CRACKER types

That have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)... and?

Yes - They definitely have DIFFERENT GOALS!

---

GOVERNMENTS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1

---

COLLEGES WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1

---

CRACKERS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

---

BOTTOM-LINE: YOU ARE OFF/WRONG BERT64 - period... & I floored your attempt @ "FUD", as-per-usual, & YOU KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as is per my own "inimitable style::

This?

This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"

You made it so!

Now, watching you *trying* to get out from under the weight of your errors by mincing words that don't change a damn thing you initially stated in falsehoolds shown above? Priceless...

( & a LOT like watching the Hulk in that video trying to lift Mjolnir, after Thor "WAPS" him with it, lol!)

... apkmany independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide."

Funny block... https://www.google.com/search?q=YouTube-MP3.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs

Or the 'windtowers' used in North Africa and the Middle East, very effective.

ARE independent of one another & with DIFFERENT GOALS, no questions asked!

Until then? Get a dose of reality!

* You're just "reaching" for straws to try to save your pride from your mistakes here Bert64 - nothing more...

(With your stating nobody has access to Windows' sourcecode (because as you can see from my posts? MANY INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS (independent of one another), DO!))

APK

P.S.=> You can't even FACE when you screwed up bigtime stating this here:

"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367

You NEED to see contrary proofs, & here they are again:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1

and

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1

BOTH links show governments AND educational institutions that have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)...

As well as hacker/cracker types having copies as well which I posted here:

Others have the source too, by-the-by - However, by "nefarious" means -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

Bert64 - You can't own up to your mistakes either it seems... apk

ARE independent of one another & with DIFFERENT GOALS, no questions asked!

Until then? Get a dose of reality!

* You're just "reaching" for straws to try to save your pride from your mistakes here Bert64 - nothing more...

(With your stating nobody has access to Windows' sourcecode (because as you can see from my posts? MANY INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS (independent of one another), DO!))

APK

P.S.=> You can't even FACE when you screwed up bigtime stating this here:

"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367

You NEED to see contrary proofs, & here they are again:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1

and

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1

BOTH links show governments AND educational institutions that have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)...

As well as hacker/cracker types having copies as well which I posted here:

Others have the source too, by-the-by - However, by "nefarious" means -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

Bert64 - You can't own up to your mistakes either it seems... apk

ARE independent of one another & with DIFFERENT GOALS, no questions asked!

Until then? Get a dose of reality!

* You're just "reaching" for straws to try to save your pride from your mistakes here Bert64 - nothing more...

(With your stating nobody has access to Windows' sourcecode (because as you can see from my posts? MANY INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS (independent of one another), DO!))

APK

P.S.=> You can't even FACE when you screwed up bigtime stating this here:

"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367

You NEED to see contrary proofs, & here they are again:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1

and

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1

BOTH links show governments AND educational institutions that have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)...

As well as hacker/cracker types having copies as well which I posted here:

Others have the source too, by-the-by - However, by "nefarious" means -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

Bert64 - You can't own up to your mistakes either it seems... apk

*oppose

On a related note, today I learned that appose is a word

Maybe you should read this article where one of the RH devs points out having the kernel devs take care of drivers is a FAILURE and why linux on the desktop is in "its death throes" because a single team can't control 20,000 packages and a couple of hundred thousand drivers and end up with anything other than what we have now, a broken mess.

I read the article, not only that, I also actually UNDERSTAND and agree with what Ingo Molnar is saying. You even ignore the difference between a distribution managed software package and a kernel driver, but still, you feel the need to comment on that. So any further discussion turns to be futile. No offence, you are the kind of user (the one who wants to use without understand) linux does not need.

Maybe you should read this article where one of the RH devs points out having the kernel devs take care of drivers is a FAILURE and why linux on the desktop is in "its death throes" because a single team can't control 20,000 packages and a couple of hundred thousand drivers and end up with anything other than what we have now, a broken mess.

Its no coincidence that the ONLY places that Linux has gained ANY traction is places where the hardware is extremely limited and controlled, servers (many servers still using Rage II for graphics, parts rarely change) embedded (parts carefully controlled and never change) and cell phones (ditto) because frankly that is the ONLY way to have a Linux system functional for any length of time and logically you should obviously be able to see it. A handful of guys simply cannot control and deliver QA and QC to the amount of code you are talking about, dozens if not hundreds of millions of LOC, which is why you have a buggy mess that doesn't upgrade worth a shit. here is another article with over 100 links of examples but I have a feeling from your tone you'll ignore it, as I have a feeling I'm talking to a FOSSie, aka one who treats Linux as a religion and not an OS since you blame everything on those that will not beg for the devs to bless their code. BTW AMD GAVE YOU THE SPECS, how's that working out?. Since the vast majority of the planet couldn't give less of a crap about the 4 freedoms as evidenced by the lines around the block camping when the latest iDevice is gonna come online, you really have to have something more than dogma, aka a fully functional modern OS that doesn't require forum hunts and bullshit just to keep running. Sadly your OS is pretty damned far from that goal and if anything getting farther away by the day.

Don't know about the juveniles but Google does return some results for citizens targeted in drone strikes.

... even one of the big Red hat developers says the current way of doing things simply isn't sustainable, that a single group can't control 20,000 packages and drivers and keep it working, and recommends an ABI

Ingo is talking about application ABI, not driver ABI. He's objected to proprietary drivers before, and I don't recall seeing any evidence of a change of heart.

Thanks to virtual memory and so on, applications have much more of an arms-length relationship to the rest of the system than drivers. That makes maintaining a fixed driver ABI more work.

After all how do you expect the smaller hardware guys to support you if the big guys have to pay entire teams to constantly fix the damned things just to make the drivers work?

In the judgement of most kernel developers, the most efficient use of limited resources is to write an open source driver that can be included in the upstream kernel. That makes it easier for other kernel developers to collaborate with your your developers on future maintenance.

The old houses used to have storm shutters. These were wooden panels that could be closed and locked in place over the glass windows. Unlike boarding up a house with plywood, a hammer and nails, the storm shutters could be deployed in minutes. You'd think they'd catch on again in hurricane zones. You do see some fake shutters from time to time, but these are useless decorations nailed fast to the side of the house.

Your believe is based on mythology, it also has evidence which is interpeted to fit the story. This is the same for creationists. both are religious views.

Which is complete nonsense, as science changes its beliefs based on the evidence all the time, whereas somebody dedicated to the inerrant truth of the Bible can't change the Bible. Well, they can, but they have to resort to reinterpretation. Religion is based on supernatural explanations, faith, dogma, and testimonial evidence, the weakest kind.

What a surprise that God would actually do things in a book about him.

Which god, and which book, and why do you think your particular god and books have any more authenticity than the others? And why would an all-powerful being not get the same message to everybody, throughout all time?

All the major lines of science were by creationists.

Now the question is why have so many scientists abandoned it since then? Most of the scientists mentioned were before Darwin's theory became accepted. They set out to look at the evidence and it didn't support the Hebrew mythology, so they abandoned it.

I found a link describing alot of your questions about the Ark.

And I still find it ridiculous that a man and his family were able to prepare food for that many animals without it rotting. The whole project is an insanely Herculean task (there's some Greek mythology for you).

but the RFS that caused the first cut into the then freashly laid soft rock.

Sorry, my mistake. I missed the part about soft rock, probably because I thought this guy was at least trying to be somewhat serious instead of trying to treat the geologic layers of the earth as differentiated mud from a single flood event.

It then says the scenerio of the uniformitarian explanation also requires soft alluvium but yet there is none there.

A simple explanation is that it was swept away by erosion if it's a high plain with not enough rain to keep plants and soil. Example: "Very fine grained, light-colored sand and gravel; deposits poorly preserved; thickness 0-2 m. Elevation ranges from 949-952 m near cableway. Mostly an erosional zone along margin of Colorado River." Assuming, of course, that geologists would agree that there's no trace in the area he is talking about.

There's plenty of alluvium evidence around the Grand Canyon, though.

Hence when one dating technique says 220,000,000 years and another says 33,000 it shows that the 220,000,000 has hidden assumptions behind it proven to be incorrect as something can not be both 33K and 220M yrs old at the same time.

I don't know if there is a legitimate discrepancy here (as in I don't know if these results have been verified by mainstream scientists doing their own excavations and tests), but just because there's an anomaly that doesn't mean you can throw out all the other evidence that brought geologists to their current theories.

For example, Back in my home country of New Zealand, there was a vocaino that exploded 3.5 million years ago on June 30, 1954. radioactive dating failure

Anti-link:

"[..] the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old [..] their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old [..] Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Aus

Rollable keyboards are cheap and plentifly. They have been for some time.

It looks like you can even get them for $8 if you are not too cool for iCarly.

Have you tried the FOSS drivers? Because you really shouldn't complain when AMD did what the community asked them to do and handed over the specs, or did everyone forget how many times we've heard "Just open up the specs and we'll support the hardware" on this very forum and others? AMD took that one step farther by actually hiring developers to assist the FOSS driver devs in getting up to speed, and from what I've been reading they've been coming along nicely, although focus has naturally been a little heavy on the APUs since so many of them are out there.

This DOES highlight what i consider to be a major failing in Linux for quite some time, the fact that its damned near impossible to JUST get security updates, as package A needs kernel B and depends on packages E-G so to keep the thing updated you end up with an "all or nothing" so you can't just update say the XBMC software without changing graphics drivers and a bunch of other shit. People can scream bloody murder all they want but THIS IS WHY a hardware ABI is a GOOD thing, because if I want to keep my 3 year old graphics drivers while being fully patched and running the latest of everything else on Windows? not a problem, I just don't have to update the graphics driver. this is also why AMD's support phase isn't a problem on Windows, as one can simply stick with the last driver and be fine for the life of the system and after 4 years they've squeezed all the power they are gonna out of a chip. Again like it or not the ONLY REASON that that Nvidia or AMD have to keep releasing new drivers for old hardware in Linux is because you simply can't use the old drivers with new kernels or the whole thing falls down.

So I don't see how the community has any right to complain about AMD, you got exactly what you asked for, all the specs opened and handed to you on a silver platter. AMD simply has a hell of a lot more on its plate than just graphics so continuing to support 4+ year old chips on an OS with maybe 5% market tops is simply a waste of resources. if you want to complain pitch a fit at Torvalds for making driver support such a damned mess, even one of the big Red hat developers says the current way of doing things simply isn't sustainable, that a single group can't control 20,000 packages and drivers and keep it working, and recommends an ABI and a much more stripped down design that allows you to concentrate on the core while letting those that sell the hardware provide drivers. I wonder how much money Nvidia has blown keeping a team of devs around to do nothing but constantly update the Linux drivers when Torvalds constantly breaks the damned drivers with kernel fiddling? bet it isn't cheap, not cheap at all.

If handing you the full specs like you asked for STILL isn't enough? Maybe its time to look in the mirror and consider that maybe, just maybe, you're doing things the wrong way. There should be no damned reason why you can't take the last release that AMD made for that HD3200 and have it run perfectly on the latest distro and the fact that you stand here and admit that it doesn't work just shows what is wrong with linux in a nutshell. After all how do you expect the smaller hardware guys to support you if the big guys have to pay entire teams to constantly fix the damned things just to make the drivers work?

Funny - the USA, Russia, China, & Colleges aren't independent of one another? Sorry - beg to differ... that, or you know something I don't!

"And your examples are not truly independent because they are all beholden to the (rather restrictive) agreement under which they receive the source, so my original statement still applies." - by Bert64 (520050) on Sunday June 17, @10:19AM (#40351271) Homepage

It applies alright - to show you were in error Bert64... no qusetions asked: Others, MANY INDEPENDENT OTHERS, have the sourcecode to Windows (legally & others besides that have it, see below)!

* Then you later tried to "change your story"... saying they're "not independent of one another?? Come on... you messed up, period.

APK

P.S.=> As to this? Well, since the others above had to sign an NDA (even though they're NOT the same as one another, different nations even, as well as educational institutions)??

"Have you actually read the terms an organisation has to agree with in order to qualify for the shared source program?" - by Bert64 (520050) on Sunday June 17, @10:19AM (#40351271) Homepage

Ahem: Bert64 - I don't HAVE to, to realize that universiites != nations, & that one nation (russia for example) != another nation (china) OR educational institutions (they certainly are NOT nations/governments)...

It's common-sense, & yet, you seem to have "issues" with that (no, you don't - it's just your PRIDE @ this point you're attempting to save imo)

Others have the source too, by-the-by: However, by "nefarious" means -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA

Bert64 - By the way: They didn't sign any NDA Bert64, did they? Of course not!

Bert64 - so, your "latest 'out'" attempt here, which didn't work anyway (since nations != colleges and diff. nations are NOT THE SAME)??

Easily "dusted/blown away", by yours truly, once more, easily (too easily)... apk

Maybe I'm just spoiled by Linux, but it really irritated me that Telus (in Canada) (aka one-third of the oligopoly that controls all cel phones in the country) took months to upgrade my Google branded Nexus S to ICS. Short of rooting the damned thing there wasn't a thing I could do about it.

We've reached a point where phones are becoming computing appliances, and end users shouldn't be held hostage by this sort of nonsense. If a major upgrade is available, I should have the option of installing it now, not when some bean-counter in Toronto decides it can no longer be avoided.

You mean you didn't get it yet?

FYI - GOOGLE only released ICS for Nexus S a few months ago. They did an initial rollout in November last year, found a whole pile of problems and withdrew it. If you didn't get the update then, you were pretty much hosed until Google actually released it.

Anyhow, having a Nexus device means you aren't held hostage - just flash the factory image on your phone and be done with it. That way you won't get updates from Telus, but from Google.

The only way to get ICS on a Nexus S before Google released it was through Cyanogen. And no, you don't have to root a Nexus... that's the entire point! "fastboot oem unlock" and you're done. Nexus phones are designed for hacking around with!