Exposing a fraud is not the same as commiting burgalry. Are we to assume that any con operation which calls itself a church should be immune to the law?
A click through is not Law. I can not put a clause in a click-through which requires you to give me your first born child or to kill yourself, give up the right to vote etc. Indeed, in the UK at least, click-throughs have all the legal binding of any other un-signed, un-witnessed agreement: none at all. Which is the way it should be.
A character from a civilization 1,200 years advanced beyond ours is explaining to a contemporary person why they still have conflict. To paraphrase...
... it's because Greg Bear is a tedious hack who can't think of anything better. Eon has to be the worst SF book of the 80's. I did have some fun reading the worst bits out to friends but that was it.
Medium to large scale pirates do have machines which allow bit-for-bit copying DVDs and had them almost as soon as the format hit the market (probably before; the equipment probably came from a pressing plant somewhere). DeCSS is of use for piracy, sure, just as a video recorder is, but no serious pirate is going to spend the time using DeCSS to decrypt and save when they can just press multiple copies at a time.
Also, I'm under the impression that some DVD players can be hacked to get at the digital output so that can become a source for net-distributed movies.
Finally if a DVD-Napster ever appears let it be dealt with as a piracy-ring (which is what Napster was all about) and squash it with the relevent legislation, not stupid rulings which extend copyright into areas it was never meant to cover (and which the written law of the US still says it can't, Digital Millenium Dohicky or not)
Which god? There seem to be lots to pick from. I've generally assumed they are all equally valid (ie not at all)
genetic studies have proven that humans should be able to live forever,
No, they haven't. All life is doomed by the eventual heat death of the universe. There is no "forever". This is the central problem all religions try to tackle; no one wants to admiit that they will one day not exist so rather than face it (or ignore it) they make up stories about why they (or everyone, depending on the religion) will be an exception. Rather pathetic, really, after all this time.
Adam and Eve slowly drifted away from perfection and eventually died.
I think you'll find they never existed.
No according to biblical accounts, humanity continued to live lifespans of up to 965 years old (Methusela).
Do things like that not give you a clue that perhaps the people that wrote the bible were making it up as they went along?
Humans also had near perfect brains for a long time which sheds light on stuff like pyramids, etc.
I've just been to the pyramids; there isn't much mystery to how they were build: 20000 people working for 30-40 years can get a lot done, especially when motivated by working on such a grand projects (no slaves involved in the construction of the pyramids, BTW). What else do you need explained?
God said "OK thats enough" and he limited humans to 70 or 80 years on average.
Bizarre, isn't it, that god changes his mind so much? Eden, lifespans, the whole Noah thing, Job, Wrath to forgiveness, etc.. Almost as if the authors weren't actually in touch with each other so their stories don't quite match up.
Our genetic code has been unmaintained for over 6,000 years, and has slowly degenerated into our screwed up selves.
Where did the 6000 years come from? There are buildings in Ireland older than that. Who do you think built them? What about the stone age tools which date back even further (much, much further)?
Face it, you have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you should take up theology.
unless you're trying to claim that the early computer scientists working at Bletchley park and other places around the world were a part of the "open source movement".
They weren't members of the open source movement because back then open source was the only method of producing software, so its like saying they were members of the human race: what else would they be?
It is a recent "innovation" to treat algorithms and programs as intellectual property (it's like saying the route to your house from a friend's house is your property). Until the mid 70's when you bought a program you always got the source.
Gates' real claim to fame outside marketing is that he was part of the wolf pack that devoured this particular freedom, stealing it from the rest of us to make him money.
Seriously, why should a computer program be copyrighted at all (even the GPL is copyright)? None of the early projects used copyright or patents but they mangaged to send people to the moon, create email, the net, the web, and Unix among others. In what way has the ability to copyright a list of instructions helped innovation?
As many of the posts to this story show, there are plenty of people even within/. that still want to believe in the tooth fairy/santa/god nonsense their parents fed them when they were kids. Getting some arrogant twat to say he's proved something which is unprovable does not help.
Creationism can't be proved wrong just as it can't be proved that there are no yellow and green spotted crows; the supporters will always claim the proof is just around the corner and that you'll just have to keep looking. Eventually any rational person gives up and says "this is a load of bollocks" and then gets flamed by the ones who still believe that the proof is still out there somewhere.
Just leave them to keep looking for their non-existant crow/god; making stupid statements like this from a scientist just makes religious people feel vindicated in rejecting rational thought.
... over zealous dependancy requirements? I get sick of downloading RPMs which refuse to install unless I have this morning's build of QT only to find they run fine when installed with --nodeps.
That is far too simplistic a definition to be useful.
No, it is the core concept of Hitler's administration. There are examples of Hitler actually advising people who wrote to him for advice where he explicitly states that this is the guiding principle at work. It may not be fascist in the way the Romans would have understood it, but that's why I said "post-natzi".
There are several states which have liberalized concealed carry laws (often enacted, as in Florida, in order to eliminate racism in the permit issuance system) and they have actually seen a decrease in violent crime since it has become easier and more fair to get a concealed carry permit.
From an incredibly high base. Look at countries where gun control is enacted and compare the number of fatal shootings. On a per capita basis there are few states in the US which aren't worse than Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles in the 70s.
Legal gun owners tend to be much more responsible than illegal owners.
If everyone has a gun then every criminal will have a gun with which to be irresponsible. Not a great help.
A well run democracy isn't incompatible with firearms ownership.
Yes it is. The freedom to say what you like without living in fear of being shot is part of having a democracy. Guns are not the only weapons but they are among the best. Kennedy was shot, Lincoln was shot, Reagan was shot. How much harder would it be to have stabbed them, and how much better would their chances of survival have been?
Arguments will always lead to some violence, it is better to limit the potential of that violence even at the "risk" of making a fanciful future rebellion a bit more fanciful.
the 'wild west' is almost entirely fictional and exaggerated
Mainly in duration, it was pretty wild but not for very long.
We should learn from history and figure out the 'war on drugs' isn't working, and isn't going to work.
This is true but are you going to get a gun and go tell congress to sort it out? How long would you last? Would it make any difference if everyone who thought that way went with you (with guns)? Do you think the 60's riots would have got faster results if the civil rights protesters had had guns, our would there just have been a lot more dead people?
the only difference between fascists and stalinists is the order in which they will remove all of your rights and the rhetoric they will use
The Stalinists were very anti-fascist but, as you say, it made little difference to their victims.
The difference in the NRA's intent and the result of their actions is important. I'm sure most members do not understand that what they are doing is leading down the road a fascist state.
A fascist state (in post-nazi terms) is one where the strong rule. Guns make people stronger, but only in attack. To use the strength a gun gives you requires it's use or the threat to use it (and the threat must be backed up occasionally by actual use). This leads to the fascist position where if you dislike what someone says to you you just shoot them (so much for freedom of speech!), which Hitler actively encouraged amoungst "true ayrans".
A well run democracy is a far better solution to a society's troubles than arming everyone and hoping they'll all get along.
Freedom always has limits. In many ways a society can be defined by what limits it sets on freedom. The freedom to bear arms is no more a basic freedom than the freedom to have sex with children, and both were considered fine by the framers of the consitution (using the modern definition of child). It so happens that the second freedom has been eroded since that time but so what? Society has changed.
The loss of the right to bear arms is as valid for removal as the right to have sex with children and as valid for defense as the right to equality of treatment. Since all "rights" are made up by people, all are ripe to be reconsidered from time to time. I happen to think that the damage caused by the second amendment far outweighs any good it does. You can argue the issue but simply pointing to the constitution and saying "230 years ago there was a society that thought this was good and that's an end to it" is not a rational argument.
As to Africa, I wasn't talking about the well-publicised massacres but the general destabilising effect of widespread gun ownership on the various societies of that continent. But, to stick with the massacres, what tends to happen is that any "dangerous" targets are attacked with guns and then, to save money, "soft" targets get the club/machete treatment. In slightly better off parts of Africa, where the cost of bullets is not as important, the gun is used almost exclusivly, as in the recent example where the staff and pupils of a boarding school where killed in Algeria.
Presumably, you don't own any large stocks of the smallpox virus, do you think you should have the right to?
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. What don't you understand?
What I don't understand is what help tautology is to anyone. Are you saying that murder should be legal because otherwise only murderers will unlawfully kill people? It's just as true as what you said about guns, and as useful.
Gun deaths in the US are huge. The argument that this is becuase there aren't enough idiots wandering around with weapons is not convincing.
-ChristTrekker
I'd just point out, if you are serious about your handle, that you can't be a Christian and hold your views on gun control; you're only allowed to tick one of those particular boxes.
By the way, you didn't explain why having a gun stops someone up a clock tower blowing your head off.
There's no need to study history for this one, there's lots of current examples.
Africa is full of countries where the citizens are well armed and, guess what, it makes for a living hell.
But why go to Africa when you can go to LA? There are parts of US cities where gun ownership is very high and, guess what, it makes for a living hell.
Gun freaks talk about everyone's right to have a long range missile weapon but don't like to equate that to everyone having the right to commit long range (possibly mass) murder in the street. Nor do they like to make it too clear that what they mean by "everybody" is "everybody I like, lock the rest up". The German example is actually a good illustration of where the NRA would like to go: "we" all have guns and all the "pinkos" are locked up or gassed, so we can have great fun marching around in our natty uniforms/hunting deer/whatever while morality goes up in thick, oily smoke.
Apart from assuming that you meant the second amentment in your third para, I couldn't agree more.
What bloody use the NRA nutters think their guns would be against tanks and fighter-bombers is beyond me. What is clear is that if you give citizens guns they start killing each other, not overthowing the government. And when a really rotten government takes power it's frequently with the aid of lots of well-armed civilians who think they're going to get a slice of the pie for helping.
I assume the original poster has never heard of Africa where huge sections of the population are armed. Doesn't seem like Utopia to me.
I live in a world where consumers actually have a clue. So if they are willing to buy a product that compromises their privacy for additional functionality, then they'll weigh the consequences and make a decision about whether or not the product is worth their time and loss of privacy.
Wow! Where is this world? I want to live there too; I'm sick of Earth.
The actual difficulty is not in versions of browsers, it's in makes of browsers. Code to the standard and forget about the user's browser if you really want to make a stand.
The idea of redirecting based on "old" browsers is insane. I use W3M quite a lot, do I lose the right to look at pages?
So, it's stiffling innovation to give software away while telling everyone how it works, but it's not if you just give it away to drive your competition to the wall?
Ooooookay. Perhaps we've had enough sun for today, Mr Allchin.
The mistake was in naming the company after a protocol/command. This is really like Henry Ford calling his company "Production Line Cars" and then getting annoyed by another company called "Fast Production Line Cars". Secure Shell is just a descriptive term and ssh is just an abbreviation of that term.
It's a shame if the inventor of such a useful thing is losing money but it is his own fault for picing a generic term for the company name. Or should the inventor of the term "Shell" sue Ylonen?
Slashdot Mirror
TWW
It's one of those bits of code that make you want to check your eyebrows are still intact after reading it. Somebody give the man a prize.
TWW
A character from a civilization 1,200 years advanced beyond ours is explaining to a contemporary person why they still have conflict. To paraphrase...
... it's because Greg Bear is a tedious hack who can't think of anything better. Eon has to be the worst SF book of the 80's. I did have some fun reading the worst bits out to friends but that was it.
TWW
Also, I'm under the impression that some DVD players can be hacked to get at the digital output so that can become a source for net-distributed movies.
Finally if a DVD-Napster ever appears let it be dealt with as a piracy-ring (which is what Napster was all about) and squash it with the relevent legislation, not stupid rulings which extend copyright into areas it was never meant to cover (and which the written law of the US still says it can't, Digital Millenium Dohicky or not)
TWW
TWW
B) Oh, yes.
TWW
Just kidding.
TWW
Which god? There seem to be lots to pick from. I've generally assumed they are all equally valid (ie not at all)
genetic studies have proven that humans should be able to live forever,
No, they haven't. All life is doomed by the eventual heat death of the universe. There is no "forever". This is the central problem all religions try to tackle; no one wants to admiit that they will one day not exist so rather than face it (or ignore it) they make up stories about why they (or everyone, depending on the religion) will be an exception. Rather pathetic, really, after all this time.
Adam and Eve slowly drifted away from perfection and eventually died.
I think you'll find they never existed.
No according to biblical accounts, humanity continued to live lifespans of up to 965 years old (Methusela).
Do things like that not give you a clue that perhaps the people that wrote the bible were making it up as they went along?
Humans also had near perfect brains for a long time which sheds light on stuff like pyramids, etc.
I've just been to the pyramids; there isn't much mystery to how they were build: 20000 people working for 30-40 years can get a lot done, especially when motivated by working on such a grand projects (no slaves involved in the construction of the pyramids, BTW). What else do you need explained?
God said "OK thats enough" and he limited humans to 70 or 80 years on average.
Bizarre, isn't it, that god changes his mind so much? Eden, lifespans, the whole Noah thing, Job, Wrath to forgiveness, etc.. Almost as if the authors weren't actually in touch with each other so their stories don't quite match up.
Our genetic code has been unmaintained for over 6,000 years, and has slowly degenerated into our screwed up selves.
Where did the 6000 years come from? There are buildings in Ireland older than that. Who do you think built them? What about the stone age tools which date back even further (much, much further)?
Face it, you have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you should take up theology.
TWW
They weren't members of the open source movement because back then open source was the only method of producing software, so its like saying they were members of the human race: what else would they be?
It is a recent "innovation" to treat algorithms and programs as intellectual property (it's like saying the route to your house from a friend's house is your property). Until the mid 70's when you bought a program you always got the source.
Gates' real claim to fame outside marketing is that he was part of the wolf pack that devoured this particular freedom, stealing it from the rest of us to make him money.
Seriously, why should a computer program be copyrighted at all (even the GPL is copyright)? None of the early projects used copyright or patents but they mangaged to send people to the moon, create email, the net, the web, and Unix among others. In what way has the ability to copyright a list of instructions helped innovation?
BTW, Babbage released his source code too.
TWW
Creationism can't be proved wrong just as it can't be proved that there are no yellow and green spotted crows; the supporters will always claim the proof is just around the corner and that you'll just have to keep looking. Eventually any rational person gives up and says "this is a load of bollocks" and then gets flamed by the ones who still believe that the proof is still out there somewhere.
Just leave them to keep looking for their non-existant crow/god; making stupid statements like this from a scientist just makes religious people feel vindicated in rejecting rational thought.
TWW
Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels, fighting their dirty, underhand war!
Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heores risking life and limb for Blighty...
TWW
TWW
No, it is the core concept of Hitler's administration. There are examples of Hitler actually advising people who wrote to him for advice where he explicitly states that this is the guiding principle at work. It may not be fascist in the way the Romans would have understood it, but that's why I said "post-natzi".
There are several states which have liberalized concealed carry laws (often enacted, as in Florida, in order to eliminate racism in the permit issuance system) and they have actually seen a decrease in violent crime since it has become easier and more fair to get a concealed carry permit.
From an incredibly high base. Look at countries where gun control is enacted and compare the number of fatal shootings. On a per capita basis there are few states in the US which aren't worse than Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles in the 70s.
Legal gun owners tend to be much more responsible than illegal owners.
If everyone has a gun then every criminal will have a gun with which to be irresponsible. Not a great help.
A well run democracy isn't incompatible with firearms ownership.
Yes it is. The freedom to say what you like without living in fear of being shot is part of having a democracy. Guns are not the only weapons but they are among the best. Kennedy was shot, Lincoln was shot, Reagan was shot. How much harder would it be to have stabbed them, and how much better would their chances of survival have been?
Arguments will always lead to some violence, it is better to limit the potential of that violence even at the "risk" of making a fanciful future rebellion a bit more fanciful.
the 'wild west' is almost entirely fictional and exaggerated
Mainly in duration, it was pretty wild but not for very long.
We should learn from history and figure out the 'war on drugs' isn't working, and isn't going to work.
This is true but are you going to get a gun and go tell congress to sort it out? How long would you last? Would it make any difference if everyone who thought that way went with you (with guns)? Do you think the 60's riots would have got faster results if the civil rights protesters had had guns, our would there just have been a lot more dead people?
TWW
the only difference between fascists and stalinists is the order in which they will remove all of your rights and the rhetoric they will use
The Stalinists were very anti-fascist but, as you say, it made little difference to their victims.
The difference in the NRA's intent and the result of their actions is important. I'm sure most members do not understand that what they are doing is leading down the road a fascist state.
A fascist state (in post-nazi terms) is one where the strong rule. Guns make people stronger, but only in attack. To use the strength a gun gives you requires it's use or the threat to use it (and the threat must be backed up occasionally by actual use). This leads to the fascist position where if you dislike what someone says to you you just shoot them (so much for freedom of speech!), which Hitler actively encouraged amoungst "true ayrans".
A well run democracy is a far better solution to a society's troubles than arming everyone and hoping they'll all get along.
TWW
The loss of the right to bear arms is as valid for removal as the right to have sex with children and as valid for defense as the right to equality of treatment. Since all "rights" are made up by people, all are ripe to be reconsidered from time to time. I happen to think that the damage caused by the second amendment far outweighs any good it does. You can argue the issue but simply pointing to the constitution and saying "230 years ago there was a society that thought this was good and that's an end to it" is not a rational argument.
As to Africa, I wasn't talking about the well-publicised massacres but the general destabilising effect of widespread gun ownership on the various societies of that continent. But, to stick with the massacres, what tends to happen is that any "dangerous" targets are attacked with guns and then, to save money, "soft" targets get the club/machete treatment. In slightly better off parts of Africa, where the cost of bullets is not as important, the gun is used almost exclusivly, as in the recent example where the staff and pupils of a boarding school where killed in Algeria.
Presumably, you don't own any large stocks of the smallpox virus, do you think you should have the right to?
TWW
What I don't understand is what help tautology is to anyone. Are you saying that murder should be legal because otherwise only murderers will unlawfully kill people? It's just as true as what you said about guns, and as useful.
Gun deaths in the US are huge. The argument that this is becuase there aren't enough idiots wandering around with weapons is not convincing.
-ChristTrekker
I'd just point out, if you are serious about your handle, that you can't be a Christian and hold your views on gun control; you're only allowed to tick one of those particular boxes.
By the way, you didn't explain why having a gun stops someone up a clock tower blowing your head off.
TWW
Thanks for reminding me that it's time to close the NRA down before someone gets kille...oh, too late.
TWW
There's no need to study history for this one, there's lots of current examples.
Africa is full of countries where the citizens are well armed and, guess what, it makes for a living hell.
But why go to Africa when you can go to LA? There are parts of US cities where gun ownership is very high and, guess what, it makes for a living hell.
Gun freaks talk about everyone's right to have a long range missile weapon but don't like to equate that to everyone having the right to commit long range (possibly mass) murder in the street. Nor do they like to make it too clear that what they mean by "everybody" is "everybody I like, lock the rest up". The German example is actually a good illustration of where the NRA would like to go: "we" all have guns and all the "pinkos" are locked up or gassed, so we can have great fun marching around in our natty uniforms/hunting deer/whatever while morality goes up in thick, oily smoke.
TWW
What bloody use the NRA nutters think their guns would be against tanks and fighter-bombers is beyond me. What is clear is that if you give citizens guns they start killing each other, not overthowing the government. And when a really rotten government takes power it's frequently with the aid of lots of well-armed civilians who think they're going to get a slice of the pie for helping.
I assume the original poster has never heard of Africa where huge sections of the population are armed. Doesn't seem like Utopia to me.
TWW
Wow! Where is this world? I want to live there too; I'm sick of Earth.
TWW
The idea of redirecting based on "old" browsers is insane. I use W3M quite a lot, do I lose the right to look at pages?
TWW
2. You are saying that you think its good for your business to be run the way someone else (eg MS) says it should be.
3. Good luck.
Ooooookay. Perhaps we've had enough sun for today, Mr Allchin.
TWW
It's a shame if the inventor of such a useful thing is losing money but it is his own fault for picing a generic term for the company name. Or should the inventor of the term "Shell" sue Ylonen?
TWW