> Should the "West" be taking it's queues from Al Jazeera...
It's just a little hard to take complaints about "respect" seriously when the muslim street is silent (or supportive) of human decapitation videos.
I also find it ironic that the whole *idea* behind banning images of the prophet is to avoid idol worship. After all, you wouldn't want anyone turning into a religious fanatic...
> Freedom of speech might also include the Freedom to be an ass. Just don't expect me to back you up.
No one asked you to back anything up. It would be nice if people wouldn't get killed over a drawing, though.
The reason the Danish newspaper decided to publish insulting cartoons was to demonstrate that the growing muslim immigrants were a threat to freedom of speech. Burning embassies because of a freaking picture pretty much proves their point.
And if the West is expected to be so respectful of islam, why does Al Jazeera show videos of hostages heads being cut off?
How is this even a question. Nothing in copyright law allows you to modify and distribute someone else's code at all. The GPL gives you extra rights, but they are conditional. On what possible basis could someone say that they have a right to take copyrighted code belonging to someone else and modify and redistibute it in a way the copyright holder doesn't approve.
And from what Bush has said recently about allowing an "open debate" about the war in Iraq, dangerous political speech includes: questioning our oil interests in the region; questioning our support for Israel; questioning pre-war intelligence; or accusing the administration of lying or misleading us into war. But everything else is fair game.
Some of this is clearly self-fulfulling. Why should I both submitting a single article when you appear far more likely to accept a link from someone who floods your site.
Why not modify your incoming queue to sort by frequency of posting. You wouldn't have to drop all Beatles_Beatles submissions, but you'd see submissions from non-flooders first. If Beatles_Beatles was the only one with that scoop, then you'd be able to post it. But if someone else had the same link, you'd give priority to someone who isn't flooding the queue.
And then, ff people thought they had a better chance of getting an article submitted, they'd be more likely to do so.
But I also think editors should really be editing. I know you hate to hear this, but that includes (1) spell checking; (2) dupe-checking; and (3) fact-checking.
1) Spell-checking. If you think discussion quality is decreased by a Roland submission, why can't you accept that the discussion is also decreased by spelling corrections. Not to mention that I just don't see how you can't take enough pride in this site to try and make it look professional.
2) I understand that you don't want to drop a good discussion even if it takes place under a dupe. I would have thought the subscriber-preview option would have allowed you to catch dupes before general distribution. You could also close discussion of the article for the first 5 minutes while it's subscriber-only and add a "this is a dupe" button to allow the subscribers to alert you right away. For another software solution, why not write a script that would move discussion from one article to another. You could then delete the dupe and move the discussion to the original article. Of course, the real answer here is that editors should be editing, and that should include searching for dupes. It often feels like editors really don't read the site. Again, I don't see why this isn't a matter of pride for you.
3) Fact-checking. You seem to admit that you basically accept anything with "key words". The site often looks like the Enquirer with such oversensationalist headlines. I usually wait 10 minutes before reading such articles and then read the top-rates comments to discover how badly you misrepresented the article. RTFA should apply as much to the editors as to the readers (perhaps even more so). I'm not asking you to spend a day researching everything, but if an article is exceptionally sensationalistic, you should at least spend a few minutes looking into it. Retractions should really shame you, but it never seems to bother you.
Can you give me *one* example of a software innovation that would not have been made if it had not been patentable and has had any significant impact on the WWW? Does Amazon's 1-click patent really make the web better, and would they have not "invented" it if they couldn't get a patent?
I just want one example. Something we all couldn't live without and wouldn't have been invented if the inventor couldn't patent it?
Since the whole point is to encourage innovation, I'd like to see some trace of evidence that it has ever accomplished that. You can't simply say "a lot of stuff has been invented lately" because *all* of it would have been invented anyways.
And why have they stopped teaching that theory about the sun revolving around the Earth? Some things are just wrong.
But the real bottom line is that ID doesn't *get* you anything in a science class. It's untestable and predicts nothing. They may as well add solipsism to their curriculum. In the end you have nothing but proof by blatant assertion.
And if they insist on teaching religion in science, how about they come up with some explanation for creation-in-six-days first? And don't give me this "definition of a day" junk. I know what "is" is, and I know what a "day" is. And why exactly did God, almighty omnipotent ruler of the universe, need a 24 hour break at the end? For an all-knowing being who exists throughout eternity in all of space and time, 24 hours isn't much of a rest. Seems kind of... I dunno... imaginary?
And after seeing what's going on in MA re: ODF, thank god GPL 3.0 won't be controlled by a democracy. Just imagine if MS was able to use all its resources to turn GPL3 into a BSD-style license. If not done properly, GPL3 could allow proprietary vendors to take GPL2+ code, incorporate it into a closed app, and release it binary only.
It's only because people *know* that later versions of the GPL will still meet the same ideals as GPL2 that they are willing to release things as GPL 2 or later.
File Management System means JFS, which IBM developed for OS/2 and later ported to AIX and Linux. Note that the Linux port was from the original OS/2 implementation and not from AIX. However, SCO's theory is that once something touched AIX, SCO's property rights to Unix infect it and travel back up the tree and down any other branches.
I just rebuilt the whole kernel and rebooted and never tried to fix a running system.
USB drives that stopped working would always start working again after a reboot. Try writing a ton of data to the disk and if it shouldn't lock up. I have run an entire laptop off an external USB drive with no problems (except that the laptop became anchored to the USB drive, of course).
I've seen this USB bug as well. The solution is to set CONFIG_SCSI_DEBUG_QUEUES=y ("Enable extra checks in new queuing code" under "SCSI Support" in the 2.4 series).
One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things doesn't belong.
Can you tell what's not like the other
Before the end of this song?
Hint:
better: adv 1: comparative of `well'; in a better or more excellent manner or more advantageously or attractively or to a greater degree etc.; "She had never sung better"; "a deed better left undone"; "better suited to the job"
fact: n 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something that is the case or has happened; "he supported
his argument with an impressive array of facts"
BTW, as long as we're altering global weather patterns, can we skip winter this year?
Wait, the problem was that it would take too long to install OO on Windows. But making your friend purchase MS Office on a Mac is acceptable? And it will guarantee 100% comptabilitiy?
Heck, what if your friend only has Windows 98 and Office 97?
Not only that, but Microsoft (or any vendor) are completely free (speech and beer) to implement the doctype that MA selected. MS's idea of an "open" proposal was patent encumbered and not GPL compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
> Should the "West" be taking it's queues from Al Jazeera ...
It's just a little hard to take complaints about "respect" seriously when the muslim street is silent (or supportive) of human decapitation videos.
I also find it ironic that the whole *idea* behind banning images of the prophet is to avoid idol worship. After all, you wouldn't want anyone turning into a religious fanatic...
> Freedom of speech might also include the Freedom to be an ass. Just don't expect me to back you up.
No one asked you to back anything up. It would be nice if people wouldn't get killed over a drawing, though.
The reason the Danish newspaper decided to publish insulting cartoons was to demonstrate that the growing muslim immigrants were a threat to freedom of speech. Burning embassies because of a freaking picture pretty much proves their point.
And if the West is expected to be so respectful of islam, why does Al Jazeera show videos of hostages heads being cut off?
The newspaper story doesn't, but the link to the patch does: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/904018
They can take *both* if they want. If they take a salary + stock, they won't get less than if they only take stock.
Oh! Oh! I know this one. I have a degree in Economics so I think I can help you here:
You should stop supporting older software when the cost is more than the benefit.
Note that "cost" and "benefit" do not *have* to be expressed in dollars, but that can often be a good proxy (especially in a commercial venture).
From your link:
> The telco is now suing the vessel...
Darn right! Why the hell didn't the ship call Miss Utility and have lines drawn in the water before recklessly dropping an anchor into the water?
How is this even a question. Nothing in copyright law allows you to modify and distribute someone else's code at all. The GPL gives you extra rights, but they are conditional. On what possible basis could someone say that they have a right to take copyrighted code belonging to someone else and modify and redistibute it in a way the copyright holder doesn't approve.
And from what Bush has said recently about allowing an "open debate" about the war in Iraq, dangerous political speech includes: questioning our oil interests in the region; questioning our support for Israel; questioning pre-war intelligence; or accusing the administration of lying or misleading us into war. But everything else is fair game.
He was gonna bring it down with a blowtorch. Adminstration officials act like this really had a chance, but really...
Nevertheless, how would you like to be the agent that captured a terrorist who was released because the evidence against him was illegally obtained?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051229d.asp
Some of this is clearly self-fulfulling. Why should I both submitting a single article when you appear far more likely to accept a link from someone who floods your site.
Why not modify your incoming queue to sort by frequency of posting. You wouldn't have to drop all Beatles_Beatles submissions, but you'd see submissions from non-flooders first. If Beatles_Beatles was the only one with that scoop, then you'd be able to post it. But if someone else had the same link, you'd give priority to someone who isn't flooding the queue.
And then, ff people thought they had a better chance of getting an article submitted, they'd be more likely to do so.
But I also think editors should really be editing. I know you hate to hear this, but that includes (1) spell checking; (2) dupe-checking; and (3) fact-checking.
1) Spell-checking. If you think discussion quality is decreased by a Roland submission, why can't you accept that the discussion is also decreased by spelling corrections. Not to mention that I just don't see how you can't take enough pride in this site to try and make it look professional.
2) I understand that you don't want to drop a good discussion even if it takes place under a dupe. I would have thought the subscriber-preview option would have allowed you to catch dupes before general distribution. You could also close discussion of the article for the first 5 minutes while it's subscriber-only and add a "this is a dupe" button to allow the subscribers to alert you right away. For another software solution, why not write a script that would move discussion from one article to another. You could then delete the dupe and move the discussion to the original article. Of course, the real answer here is that editors should be editing, and that should include searching for dupes. It often feels like editors really don't read the site. Again, I don't see why this isn't a matter of pride for you.
3) Fact-checking. You seem to admit that you basically accept anything with "key words". The site often looks like the Enquirer with such oversensationalist headlines. I usually wait 10 minutes before reading such articles and then read the top-rates comments to discover how badly you misrepresented the article. RTFA should apply as much to the editors as to the readers (perhaps even more so). I'm not asking you to spend a day researching everything, but if an article is exceptionally sensationalistic, you should at least spend a few minutes looking into it. Retractions should really shame you, but it never seems to bother you.
> One reason might be that information gathered without warrents might not be admissible in court.
They're admissible in Gitmo...
Can you give me *one* example of a software innovation that would not have been made if it had not been patentable and has had any significant impact on the WWW? Does Amazon's 1-click patent really make the web better, and would they have not "invented" it if they couldn't get a patent?
I just want one example. Something we all couldn't live without and wouldn't have been invented if the inventor couldn't patent it?
Since the whole point is to encourage innovation, I'd like to see some trace of evidence that it has ever accomplished that. You can't simply say "a lot of stuff has been invented lately" because *all* of it would have been invented anyways.
And why have they stopped teaching that theory about the sun revolving around the Earth? Some things are just wrong.
But the real bottom line is that ID doesn't *get* you anything in a science class. It's untestable and predicts nothing. They may as well add solipsism to their curriculum. In the end you have nothing but proof by blatant assertion.
And if they insist on teaching religion in science, how about they come up with some explanation for creation-in-six-days first? And don't give me this "definition of a day" junk. I know what "is" is, and I know what a "day" is. And why exactly did God, almighty omnipotent ruler of the universe, need a 24 hour break at the end? For an all-knowing being who exists throughout eternity in all of space and time, 24 hours isn't much of a rest. Seems kind of... I dunno... imaginary?
And after seeing what's going on in MA re: ODF, thank god GPL 3.0 won't be controlled by a democracy. Just imagine if MS was able to use all its resources to turn GPL3 into a BSD-style license. If not done properly, GPL3 could allow proprietary vendors to take GPL2+ code, incorporate it into a closed app, and release it binary only.
It's only because people *know* that later versions of the GPL will still meet the same ideals as GPL2 that they are willing to release things as GPL 2 or later.
File Management System means JFS, which IBM developed for OS/2 and later ported to AIX and Linux. Note that the Linux port was from the original OS/2 implementation and not from AIX. However, SCO's theory is that once something touched AIX, SCO's property rights to Unix infect it and travel back up the tree and down any other branches.
And they call the GPL viral...
I just rebuilt the whole kernel and rebooted and never tried to fix a running system.
USB drives that stopped working would always start working again after a reboot. Try writing a ton of data to the disk and if it shouldn't lock up. I have run an entire laptop off an external USB drive with no problems (except that the laptop became anchored to the USB drive, of course).
I've seen this USB bug as well. The solution is to set CONFIG_SCSI_DEBUG_QUEUES=y ("Enable extra checks in new queuing code" under "SCSI Support" in the 2.4 series).
I agree. Looks fine in Safari though. Have you submitted a bug report like they asked?
One of these things doesn't belong.
Can you tell what's not like the other
Before the end of this song?
Hint:
BTW, as long as we're altering global weather patterns, can we skip winter this year?> If there is something that we can do to slow it down or reverse it, then we should. Period.
Why? The Earth is changing, has been changing, and ever shall be changing. Should we have tried to stop the ice ages. Continental drift? Evolution?
We should do what humans do best: adapt to the changes.
Wait, the problem was that it would take too long to install OO on Windows. But making your friend purchase MS Office on a Mac is acceptable? And it will guarantee 100% comptabilitiy?
Heck, what if your friend only has Windows 98 and Office 97?
What if your friend doesn't have MS Office? Or your friend only has Mac or Linux machine?
Not only that, but Microsoft (or any vendor) are completely free (speech and beer) to implement the doctype that MA selected. MS's idea of an "open" proposal was patent encumbered and not GPL compatible.
> By the way, did you know that a) Stevie Wonder is blind, not deaf, and b) 'shrink' is not synonymous with 'crop'?
That's the point. A good HCI will DWIMNWIS.