Are you suggesting that to find the true value of the bible, you need to toss out the parts that are inconsistent with reality?
Because I suggest this indicates there wasn't nay to begin with, beyond the rebranding and profitization all of the popular myths from ancient history.
In other words, it's a bunch of nonsensical and inconsistent stories written by madmen or chalatains by scavenging the world's spoken record of myths, which is currently used to enslave a large portion of the human race.
Applying some guesswork and false logic, I can come to the inaginary conclusion that SCO has tried to make "sweetheart deals" with other Linux-using companies, and was turned down.
If you know of any, please apply pressure to them to come forward and tell why they sent SCO packing - this story needs some anti-spin applied.
What will hurt them more is that empty 20,000 box datacenter. People will move slowly to relocate a hosted box, and attrition will be creeping.
On the other hand, if no one shows up to use that new hundred million dollar datacenter because of the way they've just slowed new adoption, they're going to be completely screwed.
I'm amazed that a person with $1mm in cash to spend can't spell, reason, or defend themselves properly.
I yesterday suspected that this was MS/SCO reverse astroturfing, and now, I see I was probably right . These EV-whatever guys are actually an MS Case Study, indicating how much easier it is to deploy and manage windows boxes over Linux ones.
(Incidentally, these doofuses were using RH's kickstart instead of just copying a tarfile to the fresh box - that's how MS beat them.)
This whole thing feels like a riculous show that got out of control. I am glad that I didn't choose them for a service provider - I'm in the market right now, and they saved me a phone call.
No, they aren't. Corporations are legal entities unto themselves that exist with or without their shareholders, as a shell to protect those shareholders from taxation, prosecution and litigation. Corporations are entities that aren't don't act with citizenship, because they don't have any.
That so many people tie thier lives and successes to these organizations that have no interest in them is a shame, but it doesn't improve the organization's status. Taking from a company is still not wrong - putting faith in one is. It is illegal, though, and once again - the laws should be changed, we shouldn't be breaking them.
That's it. They're just dumbasses. They're probably a Windows shop, they provide Leenoox for the people that want it, and they bought their way out when SCO made a threat.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the threat was followed by them dumping all of their Leenoox boxes for some win2k3 action. Seems like the perfect time for Microsoft to make an appearance and save them from this costly conundrum.
Ev-whatever gets to solidify the relationship with MS, dodge an imaginary lawsuit from SCO and get rid of all that leenoox business that was making them nervous anyway.
What care do they have for the damage they leave in thier wake.
Yes, the Courtney Love thing bothered me. I wrote my initial post twice trying to avoid her name, but figured I'd sound like I was making it up if I didn't.:)
I haven't read the article in wuite a while, but my take on it (if not her point) was that the artistic comuunity as a whole would make a lot more based on a globalized 'tipping' scenario, like the Street Performer Protocol. I also forsee a 'patron' scenario, producing specific music for advertisements, event, movies, etc.
I'm not suggesting giving up copyright - and the copyleft idea does not do that. I suggest doing something else to with that copyright than turning it over to a predator company - maybe keeping it for yourself (see patron idea), or maybe giving it to your fans that support you instead of the monolithic organization that lives off of you until it burns you out or destroys your craft.
Fans get more, musician gets more, RIAA gets nothing, because they can't add value anymore.
In the U.S., that depends on what "the people" want. If you're asking me if it's wrong to take someone's belongings, I'd definitely say yes.
If you're asking if it's wrong to take things from a corporation - no, I don't think it is. It's illegal, but not wrong, and hopefully some day laws will come into parity with the reality: People matter, corporations don't. Until then, common sense says follow the laws to avoid punishment.
Yes, people prefer free. And the people are who the laws are here for.
the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work
Yes. The creators. The RIAA does not create music - it finds, harvests, markets , controls and charges for music, giving the slightest hint of what it makes (wastes) back to the original artist.
Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips. That's what copylefting music does - it allows the artists to survive very well on tips, not on hoarding. This is the way artists have survived since the dawn of humanity.
I think they mean the itty-bitty breaks in the rings that you can see if you look very close. (There's one just about in the very center of the image.)
What exactly makes Ballmer think that the Windows version wouldn't have gone over budget? You'd think that he'd seen enough consulting projects "go north" that he'd understand this is relatively normal, especially in a government job, with a tremendous number of people, and the result of a strongly competitive bidding process. I'm surprised that he can't see that - with his position, he should be able to understand what's going on here.
Oh, right - he's a fucking liar, from a nest of fucking liars. I forgot.
I'm surprised that a migration from Windows to somethign else would be difficult. Certainly not so difficult that it would cost more than Microsoft discounting the upgrade (which would not require any migration at all) down near zero.
There are costs leaving Windows, no doubt. From format lock in, all the way to the staggering stupidity and fear it fosters in it's users, Windows is all about keeping you using Windows.
No need to even investigate any further - the old boys aren't even hiding this one.. MS cannot be allowed to embrace and extend and destroy something as vital as the free flow of email. Fight it.
Reading this thread get longer... You're proud of your ability to lie to people. You talk about how you get hot under the collar when people reject your hamfisted handling of the law ("I'll get over it") and we know you carry a gun around with you, with which to threaten people with. On top of this, you have no respect for a person who excercises their rights if it inconveniences you.
And the shame is that you're pretty typical, for a cop.
Yes, people lie to the cops. Know why? Because we fear and resent you. We fear you because you can kill us and haul us away and hold us as long as you want for 'detention.' We resent you because we know you lie to us, and play your own personal version of 'justice', just as you are describing here.
The authority you hold on the street does not come from your job, your position, or any degree of trust or respect. It comes, plainly, because you can kill us and get away with it and we cannot do the same to you. Period. That is why people lie to you. It is why they do not assist in your 'investigations' and why in a riot, they will separate you from your weapon and beat you to death. I'm not condoning the behavior, but I am trying to explain it to you.
You are supposed to be the good guy, and you're not. People hate you for it.
please explain to me how giving an officer your name and birthdate could be a form of self-incrimination
Think about the reason why you want it - is it just so you have something to write on your clipboard? Or is it possibly so you can "run my history" and determine if it's okay for you to treat me as a criminal? If it's for the clipboard - go pound sand. You can write John Doe and it won't make any difference. If it's so you can use my past to determine if I committed a crime in the present - no, thanks - that's where you step on my rights.
Do you think I'm going to do that if you are completely uncooperative? No, if I find reason you are certainly going to jail.
And now, you're saying that being uncooperative is a crime? The fact that you get to decide whether to arrest me or not based on your personal feelings is a problem with the system.
If my being uncooperative decreases my chances of "getting off with a warning" then you're a bad cop. First of all, no one should get off with a warning. If you can find just cause, then arrest them. If you can't, then leave them alone. Second, being belligerent aint a crime. Being unresponsive aint a crime. Being unhelpful aint a crime. And getting a cop upset at you aint a crime.
You should really consider this before you go back on the street, because you're using bad judgement to mess up the judicial system.
No, I won't walk away from this 'agreeing to disagree'. This isn't an academic discussion - you have been given legal permission by some dunderhead to PULL OUT A GUN AND KILL ME if you feel like it, and you don't even understand how this stuff works. If you can't see the importance of getting this right, then you need some significant drilling on basic citizenship.
Your opinion is not a tool in the fight against crime.
No, asking for id (or a confession) is perfectly sensible, you are correct, it's the coercion that makes it a constitutional issue.
The statement "give me your ID or I will take you to jail" is pretty plainly coercion, though - isn't it?
There is no safety that comes from an ID check. The fact that a person has been violent in the past does not indicate that he will be this time. A person with a peaceful past may pick now to attack for the first time. An ID may be falsified, or it could be stolen. The danger of a situation stands lagely on it's own.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that to find the true value of the bible, you need to toss out the parts that are inconsistent with reality?
Because I suggest this indicates there wasn't nay to begin with, beyond the rebranding and profitization all of the popular myths from ancient history.
In other words, it's a bunch of nonsensical and inconsistent stories written by madmen or chalatains by scavenging the world's spoken record of myths, which is currently used to enslave a large portion of the human race.
Got it.
Interesting point - although they never come out and say it, they do make a point of mentioning the control panel whenever they quote a time...
One could ask why would they be so precise unless it was a necessary part of making the statement true.
Good eye, btw - I didn't catch that - mainly because I still have no idea what ensim is.
Applying some guesswork and false logic, I can come to the inaginary conclusion that SCO has tried to make "sweetheart deals" with other Linux-using companies, and was turned down.
If you know of any, please apply pressure to them to come forward and tell why they sent SCO packing - this story needs some anti-spin applied.
What will hurt them more is that empty 20,000 box datacenter. People will move slowly to relocate a hosted box, and attrition will be creeping.
On the other hand, if no one shows up to use that new hundred million dollar datacenter because of the way they've just slowed new adoption, they're going to be completely screwed.
Oh my!
I'm amazed that a person with $1mm in cash to spend can't spell, reason, or defend themselves properly.
I yesterday suspected that this was MS/SCO reverse astroturfing, and now, I see I was probably right . These EV-whatever guys are actually an MS Case Study, indicating how much easier it is to deploy and manage windows boxes over Linux ones.
Case Study
(Incidentally, these doofuses were using RH's kickstart instead of just copying a tarfile to the fresh box - that's how MS beat them.)
This whole thing feels like a riculous show that got out of control. I am glad that I didn't choose them for a service provider - I'm in the market right now, and they saved me a phone call.
No, they aren't. Corporations are legal entities unto themselves that exist with or without their shareholders, as a shell to protect those shareholders from taxation, prosecution and litigation. Corporations are entities that aren't don't act with citizenship, because they don't have any.
That so many people tie thier lives and successes to these organizations that have no interest in them is a shame, but it doesn't improve the organization's status. Taking from a company is still not wrong - putting faith in one is. It is illegal, though, and once again - the laws should be changed, we shouldn't be breaking them.
That's it. They're just dumbasses. They're probably a Windows shop, they provide Leenoox for the people that want it, and they bought their way out when SCO made a threat.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the threat was followed by them dumping all of their Leenoox boxes for some win2k3 action. Seems like the perfect time for Microsoft to make an appearance and save them from this costly conundrum.
Ev-whatever gets to solidify the relationship with MS, dodge an imaginary lawsuit from SCO and get rid of all that leenoox business that was making them nervous anyway.
What care do they have for the damage they leave in thier wake.
First of all...
:)
Yes, the Courtney Love thing bothered me. I wrote my initial post twice trying to avoid her name, but figured I'd sound like I was making it up if I didn't.
I haven't read the article in wuite a while, but my take on it (if not her point) was that the artistic comuunity as a whole would make a lot more based on a globalized 'tipping' scenario, like the Street Performer Protocol. I also forsee a 'patron' scenario, producing specific music for advertisements, event, movies, etc.
I'm not suggesting giving up copyright - and the copyleft idea does not do that. I suggest doing something else to with that copyright than turning it over to a predator company - maybe keeping it for yourself (see patron idea), or maybe giving it to your fans that support you instead of the monolithic organization that lives off of you until it burns you out or destroys your craft.
Fans get more, musician gets more, RIAA gets nothing, because they can't add value anymore.
In the U.S., that depends on what "the people" want. If you're asking me if it's wrong to take someone's belongings, I'd definitely say yes.
If you're asking if it's wrong to take things from a corporation - no, I don't think it is. It's illegal, but not wrong, and hopefully some day laws will come into parity with the reality: People matter, corporations don't. Until then, common sense says follow the laws to avoid punishment.
Yes. The creators. The RIAA does not create music - it finds, harvests, markets , controls and charges for music, giving the slightest hint of what it makes (wastes) back to the original artist.
Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips. That's what copylefting music does - it allows the artists to survive very well on tips, not on hoarding. This is the way artists have survived since the dawn of humanity.
I think it's not a "density dot" because it moves in a pattern radiating out from the planet. The still just doesn't show it.
I think they mean the itty-bitty breaks in the rings that you can see if you look very close. (There's one just about in the very center of the image.)
Fencepost error. :)
That Lucas is actually going through with this. I thought he might just stop while episodes 4-7 still had some cultural value left.
Every time I hear Jar-Jar bink's name, I understand that Lucas just got lucky once. And then he rode that luck for two additional movies.
He never should have tried to do 1-3, except from a pure cash perspetive, which, I suppose, was the real point all along.
I think their problems stem from user retraining issues - which may not be best addressed by a bunch of us strange freedom-loving types. :)
It's a good idea, in general - a formal linux users-helping-users site, funded in part by commercial deployments.
What exactly makes Ballmer think that the Windows version wouldn't have gone over budget? You'd think that he'd seen enough consulting projects "go north" that he'd understand this is relatively normal, especially in a government job, with a tremendous number of people, and the result of a strongly competitive bidding process. I'm surprised that he can't see that - with his position, he should be able to understand what's going on here.
Oh, right - he's a fucking liar, from a nest of fucking liars. I forgot.
I'm surprised that a migration from Windows to somethign else would be difficult. Certainly not so difficult that it would cost more than Microsoft discounting the upgrade (which would not require any migration at all) down near zero.
There are costs leaving Windows, no doubt. From format lock in, all the way to the staggering stupidity and fear it fosters in it's users, Windows is all about keeping you using Windows.
A recurring revenue model. :)
... and saw two things immediately.
a) Only available as proprietary Word docs.
b) It includes a license to use a MS patent.
No need to even investigate any further - the old boys aren't even hiding this one.. MS cannot be allowed to embrace and extend and destroy something as vital as the free flow of email. Fight it.
Yeah. And it's hard to draw a cat in, too. That's Gimp's fault. And the blue I pick is never the right one to match my bathroom. The Gimp stinks.
Why won't they support us guys who don't want to learn how to use the program? We matter!
Reading this thread get longer ... You're proud of your ability to lie to people. You talk about how you get hot under the collar when people reject your hamfisted handling of the law ("I'll get over it") and we know you carry a gun around with you, with which to threaten people with. On top of this, you have no respect for a person who excercises their rights if it inconveniences you.
And the shame is that you're pretty typical, for a cop.
Yes, people lie to the cops. Know why? Because we fear and resent you. We fear you because you can kill us and haul us away and hold us as long as you want for 'detention.' We resent you because we know you lie to us, and play your own personal version of 'justice', just as you are describing here.
The authority you hold on the street does not come from your job, your position, or any degree of trust or respect. It comes, plainly, because you can kill us and get away with it and we cannot do the same to you. Period. That is why people lie to you. It is why they do not assist in your 'investigations' and why in a riot, they will separate you from your weapon and beat you to death. I'm not condoning the behavior, but I am trying to explain it to you.
You are supposed to be the good guy, and you're not. People hate you for it.
And now, you're saying that being uncooperative is a crime? The fact that you get to decide whether to arrest me or not based on your personal feelings is a problem with the system.
If my being uncooperative decreases my chances of "getting off with a warning" then you're a bad cop. First of all, no one should get off with a warning. If you can find just cause, then arrest them. If you can't, then leave them alone. Second, being belligerent aint a crime. Being unresponsive aint a crime. Being unhelpful aint a crime. And getting a cop upset at you aint a crime.
You should really consider this before you go back on the street, because you're using bad judgement to mess up the judicial system.
No, I won't walk away from this 'agreeing to disagree'. This isn't an academic discussion - you have been given legal permission by some dunderhead to PULL OUT A GUN AND KILL ME if you feel like it, and you don't even understand how this stuff works. If you can't see the importance of getting this right, then you need some significant drilling on basic citizenship.
Your opinion is not a tool in the fight against crime.
No, asking for id (or a confession) is perfectly sensible, you are correct, it's the coercion that makes it a constitutional issue.
The statement "give me your ID or I will take you to jail" is pretty plainly coercion, though - isn't it?
There is no safety that comes from an ID check. The fact that a person has been violent in the past does not indicate that he will be this time. A person with a peaceful past may pick now to attack for the first time. An ID may be falsified, or it could be stolen. The danger of a situation stands lagely on it's own.