Slashdot Mirror
The Open Source Paradigm Shift
Tim O'Reilly has written up a talk he has given about the open source paradigm shift, which he describes as fundamental and long-term changes in the technology world brought on by the widespread adoption of Free and open source software.
(not the bad kind)
hmmm... why don't ya' try saying that 10 times fast
case you want to out of businees TCP/IP stack 4as market. Therefore,
...that all men have SINNED?
...that there is a PENALTY for your sin?
...that there is only one WAY to Heaven?
...that God LOVES you?
...HOW to be saved?
...that YOU can be saved?
...that you have a special INVITATION to be saved?
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
Rom. 3:23 (NKJV)
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Rom. 6:23 (NKJV)
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' "
John 14:6 (NKJV)
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
John 3:16 (NKJV)
"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Rom. 10:9 - 10 (NKJV)
For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Rom. 10:13 (NKJV)
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."
Rev. 3:20 (NKJV)
Would you like to accept Jesus' invitation to be saved?
©Noble Disdain inc.
Absolutely. Only single dimes should be accepted, any amount over 10 cents is right out.
If you outlaw paradigms, how would you make change for a quarter then? Carrying around all those nickles and pennies would suck.
Then only outlaws will have paradigms...
Solid, but for how long?
Sep 20th 2001 | BRUSSELS
European solidarity with the United States will depend on just what a global "war" against terrorism entails
A WEEK after the terrorist atrocities in America, the talk in the European Union was all still of "solidarity". "We stand four-square with our American allies and friends," said Chris Patten, the EU's commissioner for foreign affairs, in a statement echoed by scores of politicians across the continent. Opinion polls showed that most West Europeans wanted their governments to take part in military action against terrorism, with the French almost as eager as the British (see chart). Though Germans in general are edgier, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has sounded as robust as the French. [...] But the possible limits to European support for the United States are also becoming evident. [...]
It was noted with relief in Brussels and elsewhere that in the attacks' immediate aftermath, America and Iran appeared to undergo something of a small rapprochement. But it is also clear that a strong school of thought in the United States considers Iraq to be the main state promoter of terrorism. A recent book arguing that Iraq was behind the first attack on the World Trade Centre, in 1993, has won plaudits from, among others, Paul Wolfowitz, now Mr Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon.
If the United States chose to attack Iraq without convincing public evidence of its involvement in the latest terror, Europe's solidarity might begin to crack. The anti-Saddam coalition that the United States built up during the Gulf war has fizzled. France dropped out of the air patrols over Iraq's "no-fly" zones in 1998, leaving Britain as America's only ally in the skies. A clutch of French MPs has visited Baghdad, Iraq's capital. France has its eyes on lucrative Iraqi oil contracts, if and when UN sanctions against Iraq are lifted. Many governments and people in the EU now think sanctions against Iraq are ineffective--and needlessly cruel to ordinary Iraqis.
If the attempt to widen the war on terrorism beyond Mr bin Laden and Afghanistan is confined to judicial and intelligence co-operation, the EU should stay enthusiastic. But broader military strikes may cause public unease, except perhaps in Britain, with its emotional and security ties to the United States. Europe's reluctance is not just to do with evidence or with fear of the humanitarian consequences of military action. For all the talk of the attack on America being "an attack on all of us", some Europeans fear that if they cleave too closely to a broad, punitive American policy, terrorist reprisals against European cities will be far more likely. Rudolf Scharping, Germany's defence minister, at first seemed to distance himself from American war talk by cautioning against the use of emotive language: "We aren't on the brink of war."
A lot of Europeans, hoping that their advice may temper what they regard as the Pentagon's wilder instincts, say that the Americans should consult them--and "co-operate" with them--more. This partly reflects some Europeans' long-standing resentment of what they see as America's high-handedness. In this view, common in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, the crisis may have a beneficial side-effect if it makes America seek more equal relations with its European allies. But members of the British government tend not to take this line. A senior British politician points out that "America considers that it has a fundamental responsibility to respond to an attack on its own soil. What action Americans take is a matter for them."
this is a test
of valid xhtml
of course, slashdot will
fail it.