However, I don't believe that people who have actively gone out of their way to harm and exploit me, my friends, or my fellow humans, are deserving of such respect.
No one is asking you to respect him as a person. Common decency, however, is to respect that he just died, and while you might not have agreed with his opinions and his actions, you don't verbally dance on his grave. There's a reason why people typically don't break into graveyards and carve insults into gravestones. That reason extends to everywhere, including the Internet, and the anonymity it grants you does not mean that it's suddenly "okay" to behave like that.
That's interesting, but what does it mean to "respect life", and are we not doing so sufficiently in this case? If we don't respect the person, and believe that the world is better off with him dead, are we somehow not respecting life by saying so?
Yes. I really do not want to explain it in any further detail. If you cannot see why on your own, I very much doubt that you ever will.
Judging by how you go into semantics instead of realising the practical and completely natural limits to a common philosophy, I'd say you're too detached from the real world to care about your human side anyway.
There's a huge difference between not being saddened by someone's death, and downright laughing at it, praising it, and suggesting some of the absurd things to his grave that people have done here.
It doesn't matter who they were. Sinking that low is sick. Respect the lives of others as you expect them to respect yours.
.. when ridiculing someone's death nets you +5 insightful. I'm sure many of you have spent a lot of time sitting alone and clenching your fists at people, but no matter how much you disagree with someone's opinions, you just don't marginalise and ridicule his death because of it.
So because you believe that anything that requires a license is incompatible with anything that has an open source, it means that I'm somehow talking about the viability of open source?
Yes, we're discussing the threat it poses to open source. The threat exists as a natural incompatibility. My response to this is that open source zealots should stop complaining about how unfair everything is because they cannot come in from left field and challenge the core of the business models of the established software industry. You obviously just didn't get that. At all.
If the collective open source world amasses to one big pity circle jerk, no one is going to get anywhere. You've picked your philosophy. Stop complaining about how others aren't following it. It's just as annoying as religious zealots.
That has to be the most pointless comment I have ever seen. Nowhere have I suggested anything at all about the viability of open source.
I like the philosophy behind open source. I just don't like when people do nothing but complain like stubborn children about how the world doesn't always work the way they like it to and how other people are horrible for not thinking the way they do.
What? Venting? I'm asking valid questions and you're adding nothing but distractions from the topic at hand.
Please, stop the offtopic posts. You've already gone through the trouble of adding a "freak" to my list. Way to stomp your feet. Go bother someone else.
"Series of tubes" is a perfectly valid analogy. When a connection isn't a "pipe", and the congestion isn't managed by "flow control", then you can start making fun of it.
I hope you're joking. Somehow I doubt that this is caused by exhaustion of addresses in a 32 bit field. If it was, your Oblivion savegames would be above 16GiB each.
Any site is vulnerable at any time regardless of whether it has.com,.safe or.thiswaytoidentitytheft domains pointing to it. The trust that a site with a.safe domain pointing to it would enjoy would stem not from a reputation of security among sites accessible by.safe domains, but from the registration requirements.
People will always be fooled. You can always spoof domains and TLDs with malware. The thing is that a.safe domain would remove a good deal of attack vectors without adding any new ones.
It's simply easier to deny IRC. If people want to run IRC servers, there are many easier ways than colo. There are a good number of companies specifically offering IRC server plans out there as it is.
Most anything can be used for evil in some way, but IRC is just one of those things where it'd be easier to just disallow the whole thing.
IRC is a magnet for DoS. Even smaller networks frequently get hammered by random people for various reasons.
Another reason is covering their asses legally. If you have someone hosting an IRC server in your facility and a botmaster decides to stop by on that network and herd his zombies from from there, there are pretty much no limits to what a law enforcement agency could take from the facility. Sad but true.
I am not saying you should change the system to "cater to immigrants", quite the opposite, you should change the system so that you stop catering to lazy shits. The reason Europe has an immigration problem is that Europe wants to put all of its immigrants on the dole. Fine. If having them on the dole is what Europe wants, then that is what Europe gets, but then you can't complain that you have a problem. You have exactly what you wanted.
Our system worked just fine before mass immigration. There were lazy people, yes, but the overwhelming amount of Danes actually worked for a living. The problem now is the pressure that immigrants are putting on the system. If immigration tipped the scale, then immigration is the problem, and changing *anything* about our system to fix a problem created by immigration *is* catering to immigrants, and while the majority of us don't at all mind immigrants who are ready to work just like we do and integrate into the system, almost none of us want to see the system change because of it. Immigration is a privilege, not a right to be abused.
No, it didn't. The Scandinavian countries have had a no-immigration policy in place since the late '70s early '80s. Immigrants who arrived prior to the implementation of the no-immigration policy did a lot better than the current immigrant population, not only that, they did better than the Scandinavian population on average.
Please tell me, if this isn't a policy issue, why didn't it become a problem until we (including me in the Scandinavians now) changed our policy on immigration?
If you think that our doors closed in the '70s, then I'm afraid that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The vast, *vast* majority of immigrants in Scandinavian countries are there as a result of family reunification, which until the late '90s was a free pass into the country if you had any sort of relative living there. These were the immigrants who continued the trend of one or two people working for the family, and the rest staying home, and put a huge load on the system as a result of their unwillingness to integrate into the system and get jobs like the rest of us. Instead, they chose willingly to live like they used to, in a way completely incompatible with the Danish way of life, and instead collect welfare just because they can.
It's obvious that this isn't a policy issue, but an issue of incompatibility with the system. This inherently means that there won't be an issue for the first few years, but as immigration increases, the problem will increase with it exponentially. That's logical. The immigration policy change happened when it became evident that there were too many bad apples in the bunch for our system to handle, and instead of changing our system, we felt it better to stem the tide of immigrants. Which is logical. No other developed sovereign nation in the Western world would change their system significantly due to outside influence.
Rubbish. Of course it is actively encouraged. When a "political refugee" arrives into a typical European country he is not allowed to work. He is forced to take social welfare. This situation lasts, depending on the country, anywhere from 6 months to several (4, 5 6) years. Forcing someone onto social welfare for this amount of time conditions them to continue on social welfare. There is your encouragement.
Guess what? This only goes for people in asylum centres. Guess what our new policies limit? Among other things, the number of asylum seekers let into the country, and the demand to those asylum seekers once they do get in.
No, this isn't a result of any failed policy - This is a result of immigrants showing themselves to largely be incompatible with our system, and the government subsequently acting on this.
If you're really so convinced that it's the fault of the government that immigrants don't work, then you're deluded. The onus is on the immigrants to find
Slashdot Mirror
No one is asking you to respect him as a person. Common decency, however, is to respect that he just died, and while you might not have agreed with his opinions and his actions, you don't verbally dance on his grave. There's a reason why people typically don't break into graveyards and carve insults into gravestones. That reason extends to everywhere, including the Internet, and the anonymity it grants you does not mean that it's suddenly "okay" to behave like that.
Judging by how you go into semantics instead of realising the practical and completely natural limits to a common philosophy, I'd say you're too detached from the real world to care about your human side anyway.
You don't have to respect the person. Just respect life. I'm by no means "wishy-washy", or giving anyone a gold star for anything.
Respect for your actions is earned. Respect for life is something any decent person has for anyone.
There's a huge difference between not being saddened by someone's death, and downright laughing at it, praising it, and suggesting some of the absurd things to his grave that people have done here.
It doesn't matter who they were. Sinking that low is sick. Respect the lives of others as you expect them to respect yours.
.. when ridiculing someone's death nets you +5 insightful. I'm sure many of you have spent a lot of time sitting alone and clenching your fists at people, but no matter how much you disagree with someone's opinions, you just don't marginalise and ridicule his death because of it.
Get a sense of decency.
Yeah, and that defines the line between "geek" and industry professional. The rest of us don't usually ignore the entire concept of multiplexing.
Let's see..
20 *light*years to the planet.
20 *light*years back.
40 *light*years round-trip.
Hmm..
Well, 2004 *was* also the year of Half-Life 2 and DOOM 3, among many other very good and very anticipated games.
.. have to be to use "series of tubes" as an analogy for the Internet? What's next? Buffering? Routing? Flow control? HAH! Ignorant politicians.
So because you believe that anything that requires a license is incompatible with anything that has an open source, it means that I'm somehow talking about the viability of open source?
Yes, we're discussing the threat it poses to open source. The threat exists as a natural incompatibility. My response to this is that open source zealots should stop complaining about how unfair everything is because they cannot come in from left field and challenge the core of the business models of the established software industry. You obviously just didn't get that. At all.
If the collective open source world amasses to one big pity circle jerk, no one is going to get anywhere. You've picked your philosophy. Stop complaining about how others aren't following it. It's just as annoying as religious zealots.
I would have taken this further if you were of a less childish disposition.
No more feeding the troll.
That has to be the most pointless comment I have ever seen. Nowhere have I suggested anything at all about the viability of open source.
I like the philosophy behind open source. I just don't like when people do nothing but complain like stubborn children about how the world doesn't always work the way they like it to and how other people are horrible for not thinking the way they do.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you fail to see the validity of the question.
If anyone is trolling here, surely it's you. Go somewhere else and take your pointless insults with you.
What? Venting? I'm asking valid questions and you're adding nothing but distractions from the topic at hand.
Please, stop the offtopic posts. You've already gone through the trouble of adding a "freak" to my list. Way to stomp your feet. Go bother someone else.
My, you're a funny one
Yes. If only it were. Instead, it's suffering from self-imposed limitations and blaming everyone else for not living in their world.
So blame Microsoft for linux projects being too cheap to license technology like everyone else does?
Right.
That's ridiculous. Should people be required to know about crash testing before buying cars that are marketed as being safe?
"Series of tubes" is a perfectly valid analogy. When a connection isn't a "pipe", and the congestion isn't managed by "flow control", then you can start making fun of it.
I hope you're joking. Somehow I doubt that this is caused by exhaustion of addresses in a 32 bit field. If it was, your Oblivion savegames would be above 16GiB each.
Moot point.
.com, .safe or .thiswaytoidentitytheft domains pointing to it. The trust that a site with a .safe domain pointing to it would enjoy would stem not from a reputation of security among sites accessible by .safe domains, but from the registration requirements.
.safe domain would remove a good deal of attack vectors without adding any new ones.
Any site is vulnerable at any time regardless of whether it has
People will always be fooled. You can always spoof domains and TLDs with malware. The thing is that a
It's simply easier to deny IRC. If people want to run IRC servers, there are many easier ways than colo. There are a good number of companies specifically offering IRC server plans out there as it is.
Most anything can be used for evil in some way, but IRC is just one of those things where it'd be easier to just disallow the whole thing.
IRC is a magnet for DoS. Even smaller networks frequently get hammered by random people for various reasons.
Another reason is covering their asses legally. If you have someone hosting an IRC server in your facility and a botmaster decides to stop by on that network and herd his zombies from from there, there are pretty much no limits to what a law enforcement agency could take from the facility. Sad but true.
Our system worked just fine before mass immigration. There were lazy people, yes, but the overwhelming amount of Danes actually worked for a living. The problem now is the pressure that immigrants are putting on the system. If immigration tipped the scale, then immigration is the problem, and changing *anything* about our system to fix a problem created by immigration *is* catering to immigrants, and while the majority of us don't at all mind immigrants who are ready to work just like we do and integrate into the system, almost none of us want to see the system change because of it. Immigration is a privilege, not a right to be abused.
If you think that our doors closed in the '70s, then I'm afraid that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The vast, *vast* majority of immigrants in Scandinavian countries are there as a result of family reunification, which until the late '90s was a free pass into the country if you had any sort of relative living there. These were the immigrants who continued the trend of one or two people working for the family, and the rest staying home, and put a huge load on the system as a result of their unwillingness to integrate into the system and get jobs like the rest of us. Instead, they chose willingly to live like they used to, in a way completely incompatible with the Danish way of life, and instead collect welfare just because they can.
It's obvious that this isn't a policy issue, but an issue of incompatibility with the system. This inherently means that there won't be an issue for the first few years, but as immigration increases, the problem will increase with it exponentially. That's logical. The immigration policy change happened when it became evident that there were too many bad apples in the bunch for our system to handle, and instead of changing our system, we felt it better to stem the tide of immigrants. Which is logical. No other developed sovereign nation in the Western world would change their system significantly due to outside influence.
Guess what? This only goes for people in asylum centres. Guess what our new policies limit? Among other things, the number of asylum seekers let into the country, and the demand to those asylum seekers once they do get in.
No, this isn't a result of any failed policy - This is a result of immigrants showing themselves to largely be incompatible with our system, and the government subsequently acting on this.
If you're really so convinced that it's the fault of the government that immigrants don't work, then you're deluded. The onus is on the immigrants to find
Second life? On 28.8kbps? Are you mad? Do you realise the amount of custom content Second Life shifts in a single session?