Please not that comments here are just pessimistic due to how things were developing so far (see other news at http://torrentfreak.com/), and people only say you'd take greens becouse other courts probably did (or pressure, or in one case, they were/are actually pro-copyright lobbyists themselves). In reality, what we mean is that this is finally a ruling with some common sense. And don't be discouraged by many other courts ruling differently. You beat them hands down (due to your open mindedness I guess).
Flash is good in that you get a fast (ie interpreted bytecode if I'm getting it) app that draws stuff in the browser, but has additional "local" features available such as talking to some hardware. The question now is: Do we need that - is that what we want on the web? If the answer is yes, then let's build our own such thing, one whose spec will be free and entrusted to a consortium that will say what's in, and what's out. Alternatively, use Java applets.
Also: why is there only javascript for client-side scripting? *shakes head*
How about a compromise: you put in a replacable head, but you don't bundle it with ink. Can I now get reasonable prices? HP patents the *design* of their cartrages (I'm not talking about alchemy of plastic against corosive ink, that's done) - this means it wants to stop small fish from selling replacements. This, in turn means that small fish are able to produce replacements. Also chips are proof they're just greedy. But capitalism allows for it. It just cannot cost that much. On the other hand, where are companies that produce alternative low-cost printers?
Really, a license that prohibits integration of third-party code is not free software (it renders improved NOSA code non-free). I argue that's against freedom 3:
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
There are two things that may be happening here. You either: 1) Erroneously call the whole Christianity "the church", which then leads to you generalizing in the extreme. or 2) Are lying
Plus I can't imagine devout Christians shouting profanities at you. Could it be you're looking for these that would tell you off?
"Science" (it's funny to talk about such a broad subject as if it were an entity) is most certainly not in opposition to faith (real Faith that is). Misuse of science can be though.
Man, the topic IS Catholic Church, and then you come in and say "they", and "the church". Then you say you're talking about baptists and whatnot, and now about "religion". Which is it? If it's the latter as you now claim - the subject is so wide that you can't help but to generalize. Sure the nature of religion is to promote its doctrines, but you were talking about very specific points that didn't apply to the Church from the topic. Perhaps you should shake off your prejudices and find some intelligent Christians to talk to. Then form your opinion and tell me if indeed "religion" is colour black, and "science" colour white or is it more complex than that and you've been... grossly over-generalizing.
Yeah, you just have to know where to connect. Similarly with searching: You have to know whom to ask, so you ask the one who'll know whom to ask and that's the server.
However, I don't think the original poster isn't talking about random file sharing - such as BitTorrent. He is perhaps talking about decentralized (social) networks with peers/users/friends having their own servers (see SheevaPlug), and controlling both data and software on it (see http://ur1.ca/lch5 and http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Group:GNU_Social/Project_Comparison - the right part of this page).
If you haven't changed the topic without informing me, then you misuse they as a bucket for anything that calls itself Christian, while generalizing based on the minority.
Also you said you didn't say this:
>Last time I checked the church was deeply against (blah)
No disrespect, blah here stands for other text - claims that are disputed (when it comes to the Church).
>The days when you just of automatically became a member of the Church when sperm met ova ended centuries ago
Oh? When did that ever happen? Must've been that time Church killed millions of people (or better yet: Protestants for reading the Bible) in middle ages. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. You become the memeber of the Church when you're baptized - always has been that way. However, one could potentially baptize you before you were born. Not common practice, but if the fetus is in danger - prehaps.
>This is the kind of logic that would have some Catholic potentate declaring to me that I couldn't kill myself if I suffered a painful terminal illness.
Shouldn't, not couldn't - suicide is illegal although the individual suffers immens psychological pain. It just isn't the answer. "Assisted sucide" is murder. Although you may disagree, I still don't see how this proves the Church wrong on any issue, this, let alone any other.
>The Church has no jurisdiction over me, and it certainly doesn't have any jurisdiction over a collection of cells that might eventually become a human.
It doesn't claim to have it. However, neither do you. Embryo is an individual with own rights. Church is simply telling it's a living human, just as science does. This prohibits you from killing it not because the Church is some tyrant, but because if one loses moral perspective, one shouldn't be allowed to kill still.
So that should show you you're wrong about first few points. Secondly, Church, unlike *some* Protestants in America doesn't condemn evolution, in fact the Church sees it as "one of possible theories". If that still sounds uninlightened, understand that the Church's role isn't to confirm scientific theories (no matter how plausible they are) - but they're not teaching to the contrary of science. I don't know about the global warming, and I don't know what the Church says on the topic (actually I can remember one high ranking bishop saying we should take care of the environment) - but if you do, be sure to tell me. However, I somehow get the feeling youo're wronge about this one too. And finally, same as for evolution undoubtedly goes for the big bang too - we see the Bible as authoritative in matters of faith, not science (and this is true since st. Augustine in 6th ct.), the above mistakes of the past as you can see have been addressed. You've mistaken us for your own special breed of Christians (afaik that would be [some?] Evangelicals).
Agreed. And the embryonic research cannot compare, embryo is a human being, and as such it IS the juristiction of the Church to say exploiting it and killing is unethical - it's not a question of mere scientific progress, just like Nazi experiments weren't. And if one thinks embryos/Jews are less human that won't make them so, nor said experiments acceptable. Nor should we or the Church tolerate it.
Eliminating ISPs would make for truly free Internet (se PirateBay case) - and the rest of communications. No more disconnecting, no more dependance, no more monopoly of the telephony providers. It would also hopefully make it safer privacy-wise. Not to mention all the money saved on cables;-)
If they're smart, they're probably hire these people anyway. If we're lucky, they'll be working on new IBM's free software products. Alternatively, they can start a new company. That'd be cool. There are many things free that Sun had, they just need to be picked up. Who better to pick it than those who left it there?;-P
Imagine all those gradients and rounded corners - how they wasted so much pre-video bandwidth. Imagine the speed at which those pages could've loaded over a 56 kbps connection. All because Microsoft had monopoly on de-facto "standards" and is abusing it. Well we don't need you anymore, dying old browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Lamo told Manning he could provide protection under both journalist shield laws, and the clergy-lay confidentiality tradition
What? Since when is this guy a priest journalist?
I don't get it
a.
Is there such thing as a "closed" API? I mean... talking about redundancy.
Please not that comments here are just pessimistic due to how things were developing so far (see other news at http://torrentfreak.com/), and people only say you'd take greens becouse other courts probably did (or pressure, or in one case, they were/are actually pro-copyright lobbyists themselves).
In reality, what we mean is that this is finally a ruling with some common sense. And don't be discouraged by many other courts ruling differently. You beat them hands down (due to your open mindedness I guess).
Flash is good in that you get a fast (ie interpreted bytecode if I'm getting it) app that draws stuff in the browser, but has additional "local" features available such as talking to some hardware.
The question now is: Do we need that - is that what we want on the web?
If the answer is yes, then let's build our own such thing, one whose spec will be free and entrusted to a consortium that will say what's in, and what's out.
Alternatively, use Java applets.
Also: why is there only javascript for client-side scripting? *shakes head*
How about a compromise: you put in a replacable head, but you don't bundle it with ink. Can I now get reasonable prices?
HP patents the *design* of their cartrages (I'm not talking about alchemy of plastic against corosive ink, that's done) - this means it wants to stop small fish from selling replacements. This, in turn means that small fish are able to produce replacements. Also chips are proof they're just greedy. But capitalism allows for it.
It just cannot cost that much.
On the other hand, where are companies that produce alternative low-cost printers?
Really, a license that prohibits integration of third-party code is not free software (it renders improved NOSA code non-free).
I argue that's against freedom 3:
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>So the church dislikes some modern science
There are two things that may be happening here. You either:
1) Erroneously call the whole Christianity "the church", which then leads to you generalizing in the extreme.
or
2) Are lying
Plus I can't imagine devout Christians shouting profanities at you. Could it be you're looking for these that would tell you off?
"Science" (it's funny to talk about such a broad subject as if it were an entity) is most certainly not in opposition to faith (real Faith that is). Misuse of science can be though.
Man, the topic IS Catholic Church, and then you come in and say "they", and "the church".
Then you say you're talking about baptists and whatnot, and now about "religion". Which is it?
If it's the latter as you now claim - the subject is so wide that you can't help but to generalize. Sure the nature of religion is to promote its doctrines, but you were talking about very specific points that didn't apply to the Church from the topic.
Perhaps you should shake off your prejudices and find some intelligent Christians to talk to. Then form your opinion and tell me if indeed "religion" is colour black, and "science" colour white or is it more complex than that and you've been... grossly over-generalizing.
Yeah, you just have to know where to connect. Similarly with searching: You have to know whom to ask, so you ask the one who'll know whom to ask and that's the server.
However, I don't think the original poster isn't talking about random file sharing - such as BitTorrent. He is perhaps talking about decentralized (social) networks with peers/users/friends having their own servers (see SheevaPlug), and controlling both data and software on it (see http://ur1.ca/lch5 and http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Group:GNU_Social/Project_Comparison - the right part of this page).
If you haven't changed the topic without informing me, then you misuse they as a bucket for anything that calls itself Christian, while generalizing based on the minority.
Also you said you didn't say this:
>Last time I checked the church was deeply against (blah)
No disrespect, blah here stands for other text - claims that are disputed (when it comes to the Church).
>The days when you just of automatically became a member of the Church when sperm met ova ended centuries ago
Oh? When did that ever happen? Must've been that time Church killed millions of people (or better yet: Protestants for reading the Bible) in middle ages. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. You become the memeber of the Church when you're baptized - always has been that way. However, one could potentially baptize you before you were born. Not common practice, but if the fetus is in danger - prehaps.
>This is the kind of logic that would have some Catholic potentate declaring to me that I couldn't kill myself if I suffered a painful terminal illness.
Shouldn't, not couldn't - suicide is illegal although the individual suffers immens psychological pain. It just isn't the answer. "Assisted sucide" is murder. Although you may disagree, I still don't see how this proves the Church wrong on any issue, this, let alone any other.
>The Church has no jurisdiction over me, and it certainly doesn't have any jurisdiction over a collection of cells that might eventually become a human.
It doesn't claim to have it. However, neither do you. Embryo is an individual with own rights. Church is simply telling it's a living human, just as science does. This prohibits you from killing it not because the Church is some tyrant, but because if one loses moral perspective, one shouldn't be allowed to kill still.
Here's on non-embryonic stem cell research: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/04/23/stem-cell-adult-research.html
Plus, here's the current story: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/22/vatican.synthetic.cell/index.html
And as far as genetic engineering goes, the closest thing to official statement from church is this, and you should check that out too (ch3, pnt. 90): http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html (the thing they're worried about here is the same as the theme of the movie Gattaca - http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vatican-Worried-Over-Gene-Related-Racism-110002.shtml)
So that should show you you're wrong about first few points. Secondly, Church, unlike *some* Protestants in America doesn't condemn evolution, in fact the Church sees it as "one of possible theories". If that still sounds uninlightened, understand that the Church's role isn't to confirm scientific theories (no matter how plausible they are) - but they're not teaching to the contrary of science. I don't know about the global warming, and I don't know what the Church says on the topic (actually I can remember one high ranking bishop saying we should take care of the environment) - but if you do, be sure to tell me. However, I somehow get the feeling youo're wronge about this one too. And finally, same as for evolution undoubtedly goes for the big bang too - we see the Bible as authoritative in matters of faith, not science (and this is true since st. Augustine in 6th ct.), the above mistakes of the past as you can see have been addressed. You've mistaken us for your own special breed of Christians (afaik that would be [some?] Evangelicals).
Any more slanders I should address?
No problem, Dave. Any time.
Dissing is the easiest way to get mod points...
I guess all that storms, gas, and heat make it ideal for cloud computing.
(btw your posts still aren't funny, and modders: "overrated" still isn't "i disagree")
Agreed. And the embryonic research cannot compare, embryo is a human being, and as such it IS the juristiction of the Church to say exploiting it and killing is unethical - it's not a question of mere scientific progress, just like Nazi experiments weren't. And if one thinks embryos/Jews are less human that won't make them so, nor said experiments acceptable. Nor should we or the Church tolerate it.
That's why you never appologize, right? Oh no, wait, that's becaue you're allways right. Sorry.
Funny fail.
Also, Jupiter is made of gas.
Excuse me but what are you talking about? Thanks for your answer in advance.
Eliminating ISPs would make for truly free Internet (se PirateBay case) - and the rest of communications. No more disconnecting, no more dependance, no more monopoly of the telephony providers. It would also hopefully make it safer privacy-wise. ;-)
Not to mention all the money saved on cables
If they're smart, they're probably hire these people anyway. If we're lucky, they'll be working on new IBM's free software products. ;-P
Alternatively, they can start a new company. That'd be cool. There are many things free that Sun had, they just need to be picked up. Who better to pick it than those who left it there?
amature *looking* website? have you ever been to any personal .edu page?
any links please?
Imagine all those gradients and rounded corners - how they wasted so much pre-video bandwidth. Imagine the speed at which those pages could've loaded over a 56 kbps connection. All because Microsoft had monopoly on de-facto "standards" and is abusing it. Well we don't need you anymore, dying old browser.
Will do - next time.
For now I have Radeon with 2D only.