It's not the bible, it's war time propaganda. But reportedly the upper class Carthagenians were required to sacrifice their eldest children when the country was "sufficiently" in danger.
This used to be described as entirely war propaganda, but more recently there have been some archaeological finds that appear to substantiate it. This isn't, by any means, proof, but it's physical evidence (a mass grave) for which that is a reasonable explanation.
There is not, and never has been, a free market. Arguments about the characteristics of this mythical beast are in the same category as arguments about whether unicorns have beards. (Medieval depictions usually show them. This doesn't say anything about actual, as opposed to fictitious, unicorns. Some argue that the unicorn was based around tales of rhinoceros..but a rhinoceros isn't a unicorn.)
I could equally well argue that in a free market there could be no exchange of money, as money is a fiat currency, but only an exchange of actual valuables. There isn't a genuine free market to look at so you could prove me wrong.
That doesn't mean or imply that the problem isn't real and doesn't exist. And the problems listed by the grandparent are only a very small few of the number of problems with copyrights that extend over long periods of time. 15 years is a reasonable maximum value, and even that is probably excessive. And if that limit is agreed to, then the holder of the copyright must be legally committed to making the work available for the cost of copying and distribution for the next 15 years. And this requirement must be enforced by either prohibition of DRM on the original work, or sufficient bond that the bonding company will ensure that the work is made available.
The more significant problem with the current system is that we are in danger of losing our cultural history. Essentially ALL of it, because public domain works are being suppressed in the name of profit for copyright holders, and recording media don't last forever. Paper is among the most durable, and that's fragile. (There was a form of CD that was probably much more durable, but it was too expensive to produce, so it has fallen out of use.)
O, they've noticed. They just haven't done anything about it. The official rules say the court must presume that the patent office has done it's job properly, and it's up to the party accused of violating the property to prove otherwise. The court has often noticed that the patent office HASN'T done it's job properly, but they still follow rules that require them to presume that it has.
Caution: IANAL. Also, I don't claim to understand any patent at all, or anything about patent law, including why that patent on swinging sideways on a swing was granted. But it *MUST* be correct.
Really? That seems like massive overkill. I had presumed that they had merely built their site in Mozilla Composer. (I didn't dig at all deeply, as they didn't seem worth the effort.)
Still, I *have* seen worse sites. That their site is boring is only partially due to the design, not being interested in the content contributes, also. I did check out a few pages, and I didn't notice anything that couldn't have been done with hyperlinks from a table (for two column organization). Simple. "Sort of" effective. The kind of thing that used to be common when "Web Spider" was the (a?) main search engine.
It seems to be a garden variety portal site. A bunch of links to other sites that actually have content coming from a nest of pages that link to each other in a vaguely treeish (not strictly a tree, even a tree with uplinks, but almost). Yahoo categories kind of thing, only not done as well, and only trying to cover a very small range of topics.
Basically, generally worthless, but not totally so. And perhaps they check the sites they link to for quality.
OTOH, they seem poorly organized. It took them more than half an hour to design this site, but not more than a week, and the design was simple and generic enough that you could have designed it in Mozilla Composer and had the design BE the implementation. (Well, almost. They've also got some search function that I didn't try out. My expectation was that it's a simple web spider that just searches their site, but I didn't check.)
"A stupid site that's probably failing commercially, so it decided to sue Google for some easy money." is my simple summation of my impressions of them.
Consider the corporate goals. A secure OS would probably be one that could only interface with approved MS solutions.
MS has a long history of breaking interfaces with products outside of the company. Frequently the only way to interface with it is something that the company would define as forbidden. The user might, but that has traditionally been a secondary (or tertiary) consideration for MS.
I *do* expect MS to put the spyware companies out of business. I expect it to do this by requiring that they get everything they want to install signed in advance. And by fubaring the administration of the signing process so that the anti-virus companies can't get their fixes out any sooner than MS can.
The actual problem is the EULA's that you need to agree to to even INSTALL the software to do the development.
I'll agree that your list demonstrates that the maximum possible gain has a cap on it (and that the size of the cap is not determinable ahead of time). Most people will never reach that cap. Everyone who wants to develop for MS will need to agree to their EULA's. You really *ought* to read one sometime. Reading their EULA is what originally drove me to Linux.
Generally, "What's to lose" is a lawsuit from the studio they signed a contract with. Just a guess, of course. I understand some artists *DO* sell downloads.
This is one reason among many why the government has taken steps to make consumer class action suits more difficult. I don't expect any of these suits to succeed given the current law. I'm not *certain* that they *should* succeed, but the laws have been changed so that even claims much more reasonable than this will not be eligible for class action suits.
Sony assures us that, at least for now, it won't discriminate against us. So we should trust them and give them our money.
You do as you choose, Sony has yet to prove to me that it's anything better than a script kiddie. One that steals your wallet as well as riffling your computer.
But they still haven't made the menu editor useable. That's the big thing that makes Gnome a useless desktop for me, and it's *SO* aggravating, because they *used* to have a decent one. (Well, that was back around the time of sawmill or sawfish or some such...but they DID have one.)
I don't set up my menus the way Gnome wants them set up, so the Gnome menus are useless. I can hide or reveal things, but I can't move them around or (easily) add new ones. I suppose I could dig into the guts and re-edit the text files...and then do it again with each release of Gnome, but that seems a perfectly absurd approach. Better than using a hex editor to hand edit the i-nodes, but a step in that direction, and just as silly.
To me the Gnome menu editor situation is so bad that the only thing that would convince me to use it was for KDE to have a worse problem. (This has happened, so I have both desktops installed, but it hasn't happened for very long at a time, and this absurd problem with the Gnome menu editor has persisted for several years.)
The problem is, that gives the welfare queens and kings a reason to fuck like crazy and breed like rabbits for bigger checks. And the kids still remain in the ghetto for life. --Cro Magnon
Cro Magnon? You overrate yourself. A Neanderthal would be embarrassed. So, probably, would a Habilis. I can easily tell that you don't know the people you are criticizing. Yes, they aren't moral supermen, but they aren't lice, either. They're just humans caught in a trap. Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself to blame them, I don't know you, so I can't say for certain It's also a possibility that you are just so self-centered that you can't understand anyone else's problems.
This is a pity, because you have actually put your finger on a part of the problem, and then obscured it with your desire to throw blame around. The design of the social support system is extremely poor.
If the social support system were designed to support all citizens without requiring them to adopt the "one down" position to ask for assistance, then many of the problems would automatically solve themselves. This would also probably increase the efficiency of the system, on the average, terrifically. As it is our health care system is falling apart at a tremendous rate, and this is due to the extortionate amount of funding extracted from it by the "Heath Insurance" industry. Doctors are retiring faster than they are graduating, while the population is increasing. This means that on the average doctors are forced to provide fewer services than they did in the past. And this is for the PAID services. The medicare support is even less, with some doctors either effectively refusing to deal with them, or only providing minimal service, and letting you KNOW that it charity on their part. Kaiser, I understand, now limits doctors to 15 minutes per patient. This can result in misdiagnoses that could be avoided. The median age for allergists in my local area is over 50. What happens when they start retiring?
These are problems which need to be seriously addressed, but our government doesn't seem to be willing to address them. This means that we can expect our health care system to collapse within a decade or two. And that probably means the return of a pandemic of one variety or another. Well, if you don't like birth control, that's one way to control the population.
Have you been following the government's handling of the H5N1 Bird flu? It's still not clear what's going to happen there, but if it turns into a pandemic the politicians will be protected and everyone else is going to be hung out to dry in the wind. Perhaps the bird flu won't do anything by quadruple the price of chicken. Maybe. But look at the steps that the government has taken, and look at who they will protect. Compare this against the "best practices" described by the medical specialists in epidemiology. It looks designed to CAUSE a major disaster, not to prevent one. It looks designed to CAUSE a disaster that only the politically well connected will escape. Well, them, the rural isolationists, and a very few lucky ones. Perhaps it won't turn out to be dangerous. Perhaps. It's YOUR life they are gambling with, though, not their own.
Not to worry. It won't last. I expect a few years of double, or even triple digit inflation within the next decade, as other countries get tired of subsidizing the dollar. This may not wait for the oil to run out, but will certainly happen then.
It's not that we CAN'T prepare and work for a sustainable society, it's that we WON'T. And one side effect of the WON'T is the kind of narrow vision that makes extreme differences in level of wealth seem acceptable. In ancient Athens the difference in income between the wealthy and the dirt poor (counting non-slave males only) was about 50, i.e. the wealthiest man earned about 50 times as much per year as the most impoverished. A legitimate argument could be made that as the society has grown larger there needs to be a larger difference between top and bottom to maintain social stability, but the difference should scale as log2(n) rather than as n or n^2, which is the way we appear to be scaling it. (The reasoning is that a balanced tree grows in height by log2(n)..and the argument is that difference in income is needed to reflect difference in status which is needed to maintain social stability. I'm not certain that this is valid, but it's certainly arguable.)
Extreme differences in income tend to lead to authoritarian societies. Which is where we seem to be headed. And such societies are very brittle in the face of change, where we also seem to be headed. Oops! Bad choice here! Leveling the difference in income decreases internal social stresses, and allows the society to more flexibly adapt to unexpected change... like your job suddenly becoming obsolete. If you aren't in fear of losing your home, you will be able to face this possibility more resiliently.
Don't overgeneralize. Many Americans are evil, stupid, etc. This doesn't mean that "America", the entity, is such...or no more than most other countries.
I couldn't quarrel if you said the current government of America (meaning, of course, the US) was evil, stupid, etc. That seems beyond question, the only argument being about the proportions of evil vs. stupid involved in the decisions. This doesn't mean that the rank and file are evil. Manipulated, yes, but generally not evil. I'm not denying a serious admixture of evil people. That is also clearly present, but this is an always true. A good system is designed to render their presence harmless, not one that presumes their absence.
We HAD a good system. It came to an end around the time of Eisenhower, when corporate funding of candidates became overwhelmingly significant. Prior to that the mass media were required to make air time available to political candidates gratis. After an FCC decision that was no longer true. This was tied in with the decision making it easier for alternate political parties to get on the ballot, so it was disguised as an opening up of the system to more voices, where actually the effect was that anyone who wanted to get elected would need to be wealthier than Ross Perot, or would need massive corporate sponsorship. Certain small states have largely escaped the effect of this, because they are small enough that everyone can know who the candidate is, and what his historical views are without mass media coverage, so no large surcharge can be attached.
Note that accurately informed popular vote isn't a guarantee that someone wise, noble, and kind will be elected. It merely provides a possibility for getting rid of those who are seriously corrupt before they can do too much damage. Even this won't stand up to fixed voting machines, however. In many counties in California Diebold has snuck back in via secret hearing and deals with hidden terms. This was caused because a corrupt state official certified them without checking their honesty. So far nobody in the state government has shown ANY interest in punishing him. Guess how honest I expect the next election to be.
So. The country is being run by an evil and corrupt system, and it has elected evil and corrupt officials. This doesn't make the country evil and corrupt...but it's sure a good start in that direction.
Umnh.... they are accused of having done what you assert, but they haven't yet been convicted, so you are supposed to presume their innocence (and the judge certainly is). I don't find having the "evidence" in the hands of the police to be very desireable. It's too easy to tamper with computer files. If I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe ANY evidence that they came up with. Not unless it was confirmed from totally independent sources.
I know that the judge ordered that they not use the information except in a very narrow use, but just HOW is that going to be enforced? I've heard very interesting stories about what happens to confiscated computers, and they don't lead me to trust the police handling of evidence.
I think you are wrong. I'll accept that the US isn't England, but I think that law *did* pass. It's clearly unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to matter very much any more. The government is thoroughly corrupt, to their eye-teeth, and to the point that I don't trust them much more than the folk they are pretending to defend me against. (I've anecdotes from several "friend or relative of a close friend"s, one was still being fought in court, and it looked like they would eventually win. But the lawyers will end up with their house. Yey justice!)
E/A. Those are the people who are engaging in unfair labor practices aren't they? I can think of other reasons for a boycott than those based around fanaticism. Enlightened self-interest comes to mind.
Re:Christian Backlash? I think not.
on
Spore Is EA's New Ace
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, until you put a muzzle on your less tolerant "co-religionists" you can expect to have the most noisy used as a synecdoche for the whole.
It happens with every group. In FOSS the quieter members are seen as supporting the views of the noisy. (From inside it looks quite unfair, but I really don't see how those outside could do anything else.) Similarly, if you want Christianity to have a good public image, then civilize the noisy ones.
Actually, since "Christians" have started getting more political power I find myself less willing to cut any slack to some apparently reasonable person who proclaims "I'm what a Christian really is.". The people censoring books are what a Christian is. The fomenters of mobs are what a Christian is. I've seen them in action, so I recognize them. If you want to identify yourself as the same as them, then why should you expect any toleration?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Harlan *is* a better choice, if only marginally.
It's not the bible, it's war time propaganda. But reportedly the upper class Carthagenians were required to sacrifice their eldest children when the country was "sufficiently" in danger.
This used to be described as entirely war propaganda, but more recently there have been some archaeological finds that appear to substantiate it. This isn't, by any means, proof, but it's physical evidence (a mass grave) for which that is a reasonable explanation.
There is not, and never has been, a free market. Arguments about the characteristics of this mythical beast are in the same category as arguments about whether unicorns have beards. (Medieval depictions usually show them. This doesn't say anything about actual, as opposed to fictitious, unicorns. Some argue that the unicorn was based around tales of rhinoceros..but a rhinoceros isn't a unicorn.)
I could equally well argue that in a free market there could be no exchange of money, as money is a fiat currency, but only an exchange of actual valuables. There isn't a genuine free market to look at so you could prove me wrong.
I agree. *You* don't see the problem.
That doesn't mean or imply that the problem isn't real and doesn't exist. And the problems listed by the grandparent are only a very small few of the number of problems with copyrights that extend over long periods of time. 15 years is a reasonable maximum value, and even that is probably excessive. And if that limit is agreed to, then the holder of the copyright must be legally committed to making the work available for the cost of copying and distribution for the next 15 years. And this requirement must be enforced by either prohibition of DRM on the original work, or sufficient bond that the bonding company will ensure that the work is made available.
The more significant problem with the current system is that we are in danger of losing our cultural history. Essentially ALL of it, because public domain works are being suppressed in the name of profit for copyright holders, and recording media don't last forever. Paper is among the most durable, and that's fragile. (There was a form of CD that was probably much more durable, but it was too expensive to produce, so it has fallen out of use.)
They may not just be circular. If they make you want to start cursing, read a little more and recurse.
O, they've noticed. They just haven't done anything about it. The official rules say the court must presume that the patent office has done it's job properly, and it's up to the party accused of violating the property to prove otherwise. The court has often noticed that the patent office HASN'T done it's job properly, but they still follow rules that require them to presume that it has.
Caution: IANAL. Also, I don't claim to understand any patent at all, or anything about patent law, including why that patent on swinging sideways on a swing was granted. But it *MUST* be correct.
Really? That seems like massive overkill. I had presumed that they had merely built their site in Mozilla Composer. (I didn't dig at all deeply, as they didn't seem worth the effort.)
Still, I *have* seen worse sites. That their site is boring is only partially due to the design, not being interested in the content contributes, also. I did check out a few pages, and I didn't notice anything that couldn't have been done with hyperlinks from a table (for two column organization). Simple. "Sort of" effective. The kind of thing that used to be common when "Web Spider" was the (a?) main search engine.
It seems to be a garden variety portal site. A bunch of links to other sites that actually have content coming from a nest of pages that link to each other in a vaguely treeish (not strictly a tree, even a tree with uplinks, but almost). Yahoo categories kind of thing, only not done as well, and only trying to cover a very small range of topics.
Basically, generally worthless, but not totally so. And perhaps they check the sites they link to for quality.
OTOH, they seem poorly organized. It took them more than half an hour to design this site, but not more than a week, and the design was simple and generic enough that you could have designed it in Mozilla Composer and had the design BE the implementation. (Well, almost. They've also got some search function that I didn't try out. My expectation was that it's a simple web spider that just searches their site, but I didn't check.)
"A stupid site that's probably failing commercially, so it decided to sue Google for some easy money." is my simple summation of my impressions of them.
Would you *want* a secure OS from MS?
Consider the corporate goals. A secure OS would probably be one that could only interface with approved MS solutions.
MS has a long history of breaking interfaces with products outside of the company. Frequently the only way to interface with it is something that the company would define as forbidden. The user might, but that has traditionally been a secondary (or tertiary) consideration for MS.
I *do* expect MS to put the spyware companies out of business. I expect it to do this by requiring that they get everything they want to install signed in advance. And by fubaring the administration of the signing process so that the anti-virus companies can't get their fixes out any sooner than MS can.
The actual problem is the EULA's that you need to agree to to even INSTALL the software to do the development.
I'll agree that your list demonstrates that the maximum possible gain has a cap on it (and that the size of the cap is not determinable ahead of time). Most people will never reach that cap. Everyone who wants to develop for MS will need to agree to their EULA's. You really *ought* to read one sometime. Reading their EULA is what originally drove me to Linux.
Generally, "What's to lose" is a lawsuit from the studio they signed a contract with. Just a guess, of course. I understand some artists *DO* sell downloads.
Pay the extortionist if you want to. I'd need a much better reason that a promise to not cripple my purchase for a little while.
This is one reason among many why the government has taken steps to make consumer class action suits more difficult. I don't expect any of these suits to succeed given the current law. I'm not *certain* that they *should* succeed, but the laws have been changed so that even claims much more reasonable than this will not be eligible for class action suits.
Sony assures us that, at least for now, it won't discriminate against us. So we should trust them and give them our money.
You do as you choose, Sony has yet to prove to me that it's anything better than a script kiddie. One that steals your wallet as well as riffling your computer.
But they still haven't made the menu editor useable. That's the big thing that makes Gnome a useless desktop for me, and it's *SO* aggravating, because they *used* to have a decent one. (Well, that was back around the time of sawmill or sawfish or some such...but they DID have one.)
I don't set up my menus the way Gnome wants them set up, so the Gnome menus are useless. I can hide or reveal things, but I can't move them around or (easily) add new ones. I suppose I could dig into the guts and re-edit the text files...and then do it again with each release of Gnome, but that seems a perfectly absurd approach. Better than using a hex editor to hand edit the i-nodes, but a step in that direction, and just as silly.
To me the Gnome menu editor situation is so bad that the only thing that would convince me to use it was for KDE to have a worse problem. (This has happened, so I have both desktops installed, but it hasn't happened for very long at a time, and this absurd problem with the Gnome menu editor has persisted for several years.)
The problem is, that gives the welfare queens and kings a reason to fuck like crazy and breed like rabbits for bigger checks. And the kids still remain in the ghetto for life.
--Cro Magnon
Cro Magnon? You overrate yourself. A Neanderthal would be embarrassed. So, probably, would a Habilis. I can easily tell that you don't know the people you are criticizing. Yes, they aren't moral supermen, but they aren't lice, either. They're just humans caught in a trap. Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself to blame them, I don't know you, so I can't say for certain It's also a possibility that you are just so self-centered that you can't understand anyone else's problems.
This is a pity, because you have actually put your finger on a part of the problem, and then obscured it with your desire to throw blame around. The design of the social support system is extremely poor.
If the social support system were designed to support all citizens without requiring them to adopt the "one down" position to ask for assistance, then many of the problems would automatically solve themselves. This would also probably increase the efficiency of the system, on the average, terrifically. As it is our health care system is falling apart at a tremendous rate, and this is due to the extortionate amount of funding extracted from it by the "Heath Insurance" industry. Doctors are retiring faster than they are graduating, while the population is increasing. This means that on the average doctors are forced to provide fewer services than they did in the past. And this is for the PAID services. The medicare support is even less, with some doctors either effectively refusing to deal with them, or only providing minimal service, and letting you KNOW that it charity on their part. Kaiser, I understand, now limits doctors to 15 minutes per patient. This can result in misdiagnoses that could be avoided. The median age for allergists in my local area is over 50. What happens when they start retiring?
These are problems which need to be seriously addressed, but our government doesn't seem to be willing to address them. This means that we can expect our health care system to collapse within a decade or two. And that probably means the return of a pandemic of one variety or another. Well, if you don't like birth control, that's one way to control the population.
Have you been following the government's handling of the H5N1 Bird flu? It's still not clear what's going to happen there, but if it turns into a pandemic the politicians will be protected and everyone else is going to be hung out to dry in the wind. Perhaps the bird flu won't do anything by quadruple the price of chicken. Maybe. But look at the steps that the government has taken, and look at who they will protect. Compare this against the "best practices" described by the medical specialists in epidemiology. It looks designed to CAUSE a major disaster, not to prevent one. It looks designed to CAUSE a disaster that only the politically well connected will escape. Well, them, the rural isolationists, and a very few lucky ones. Perhaps it won't turn out to be dangerous. Perhaps. It's YOUR life they are gambling with, though, not their own.
Not to worry. It won't last. I expect a few years of double, or even triple digit inflation within the next decade, as other countries get tired of subsidizing the dollar. This may not wait for the oil to run out, but will certainly happen then.
It's not that we CAN'T prepare and work for a sustainable society, it's that we WON'T. And one side effect of the WON'T is the kind of narrow vision that makes extreme differences in level of wealth seem acceptable. In ancient Athens the difference in income between the wealthy and the dirt poor (counting non-slave males only) was about 50, i.e. the wealthiest man earned about 50 times as much per year as the most impoverished. A legitimate argument could be made that as the society has grown larger there needs to be a larger difference between top and bottom to maintain social stability, but the difference should scale as log2(n) rather than as n or n^2, which is the way we appear to be scaling it. (The reasoning is that a balanced tree grows in height by log2(n)..and the argument is that difference in income is needed to reflect difference in status which is needed to maintain social stability. I'm not certain that this is valid, but it's certainly arguable.)
Extreme differences in income tend to lead to authoritarian societies. Which is where we seem to be headed. And such societies are very brittle in the face of change, where we also seem to be headed. Oops! Bad choice here! Leveling the difference in income decreases internal social stresses, and allows the society to more flexibly adapt to unexpected change... like your job suddenly becoming obsolete. If you aren't in fear of losing your home, you will be able to face this possibility more resiliently.
Don't overgeneralize. Many Americans are evil, stupid, etc. This doesn't mean that "America", the entity, is such...or no more than most other countries.
I couldn't quarrel if you said the current government of America (meaning, of course, the US) was evil, stupid, etc. That seems beyond question, the only argument being about the proportions of evil vs. stupid involved in the decisions. This doesn't mean that the rank and file are evil. Manipulated, yes, but generally not evil. I'm not denying a serious admixture of evil people. That is also clearly present, but this is an always true. A good system is designed to render their presence harmless, not one that presumes their absence.
We HAD a good system. It came to an end around the time of Eisenhower, when corporate funding of candidates became overwhelmingly significant. Prior to that the mass media were required to make air time available to political candidates gratis. After an FCC decision that was no longer true. This was tied in with the decision making it easier for alternate political parties to get on the ballot, so it was disguised as an opening up of the system to more voices, where actually the effect was that anyone who wanted to get elected would need to be wealthier than Ross Perot, or would need massive corporate sponsorship. Certain small states have largely escaped the effect of this, because they are small enough that everyone can know who the candidate is, and what his historical views are without mass media coverage, so no large surcharge can be attached.
Note that accurately informed popular vote isn't a guarantee that someone wise, noble, and kind will be elected. It merely provides a possibility for getting rid of those who are seriously corrupt before they can do too much damage. Even this won't stand up to fixed voting machines, however. In many counties in California Diebold has snuck back in via secret hearing and deals with hidden terms. This was caused because a corrupt state official certified them without checking their honesty. So far nobody in the state government has shown ANY interest in punishing him. Guess how honest I expect the next election to be.
So. The country is being run by an evil and corrupt system, and it has elected evil and corrupt officials. This doesn't make the country evil and corrupt...but it's sure a good start in that direction.
Umnh.... they are accused of having done what you assert, but they haven't yet been convicted, so you are supposed to presume their innocence (and the judge certainly is). I don't find having the "evidence" in the hands of the police to be very desireable. It's too easy to tamper with computer files. If I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe ANY evidence that they came up with. Not unless it was confirmed from totally independent sources.
I know that the judge ordered that they not use the information except in a very narrow use, but just HOW is that going to be enforced? I've heard very interesting stories about what happens to confiscated computers, and they don't lead me to trust the police handling of evidence.
That may or may not be significant. Unfortunately many judges will rubber stamp any request for a warrant...and it only takes one in any jurisdiction.
I think you are wrong. I'll accept that the US isn't England, but I think that law *did* pass. It's clearly unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to matter very much any more. The government is thoroughly corrupt, to their eye-teeth, and to the point that I don't trust them much more than the folk they are pretending to defend me against. (I've anecdotes from several "friend or relative of a close friend"s, one was still being fought in court, and it looked like they would eventually win. But the lawyers will end up with their house. Yey justice!)
E/A. Those are the people who are engaging in unfair labor practices aren't they? I can think of other reasons for a boycott than those based around fanaticism. Enlightened self-interest comes to mind.
Well, until you put a muzzle on your less tolerant "co-religionists" you can expect to have the most noisy used as a synecdoche for the whole.
It happens with every group. In FOSS the quieter members are seen as supporting the views of the noisy. (From inside it looks quite unfair, but I really don't see how those outside could do anything else.) Similarly, if you want Christianity to have a good public image, then civilize the noisy ones.
Actually, since "Christians" have started getting more political power I find myself less willing to cut any slack to some apparently reasonable person who proclaims "I'm what a Christian really is.". The people censoring books are what a Christian is. The fomenters of mobs are what a Christian is. I've seen them in action, so I recognize them. If you want to identify yourself as the same as them, then why should you expect any toleration?
No. That's just what you expect of an alpha (or even beta) product of this kind. They aren't calling this a release, they're calling it a demo.
Looks like McAfee listened to complaints, and decided to get rid of rootkits even if they were issued by major corporations.
Either that, or they made one dilly of a mistake.