Don't kid yourself, religion and science use entirely different standards to decide what is true. Science uses logic and evidence, religion uses faith and dogma. Dogma is defined as "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof."
Science may not have an answer for everything, science has made mistakes, not every accepted theory can be 100% proven. But religion does not even try to prove anything, religion requires you to accept what is proclaimed without any attempt of evidence, or logic, what-so-ever. With religion, it's true just because somebody said so - no other reason.
Don't let yourself be fooled by an argument of ignorance. Don't think "if science doesn't have every answer that proves religion to be true." Because that is just illogical.
What is known about science is backed by hard evidence - religion has no such standard.
I don't mean to offend anybody, but law enforcement, and private investigating, are not the most accedemically demanding professions. Yet many in those fields feel vastly more qualified than any techno-weenie.
I think it would be great fun for PIs to have an idea of what the techies really have to know. I would be willing to bet, a lot of them couldn't handle it.
My debian etch VPS takes up less than 12mb ram, and less 500mb HDD space. The hardware requirements for Server-2008 are astronomical by comparison. But, if you are running some huge commercial site, I don't suppose the hardware requirements are a big deal.
Msft has been playing the format shuffle game for decades. How many times does msft get to fool everybody with the same trick? Come on, we have all seen this dozens of times from msft. Maybe silverfish works with firefox *now*. But what about two years from now?
Look at msft's insanely agressive battle against ODF: bribes, ballot stuffing, forcing Peter Quinn's resignation, and so on.
Controlling the standards is the very core of msft's business model. With msft it's all about vendor lock, and forced upgrades, strategic incompatiblity, using one product to force apodtion of another, and so on. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm sick to death of msft's gaming. And no, other companies do not play the same game.
IMO: you would have to be stupid to trust msft to not exploit an internet standard.
> Now for some odd reason a large group of people come along and say "we want magic" and expect the input/output and storage models to be disassociated. How is that supposed to work?
So you saying that standards can not possibly work? That people want "magic?"
Hate to break it to you, but standards already work. Consider ASCII. Also ODF is already incorporated in several word processors.
Of course input/output and storage models can be disassociated, it's done all of the time.
1) OLPC starts shipping; sales under G1G1 program exceed 150,000 units (number does not include sales to governments).
2) Dell ships Ubuntu loaded PCs.
3) Other computer manufacturers follow Dell's lead in preinstalling Linux on inexpensive laptops; Wal-Mart sells out of the 10,000 units of the model they carry in less than two weeks
4) Samba/Microsoft agreement defangs Microsoft's patent FUD
5) MS-Vista bombs. After years of delays, MS-Vista finally debuts. Even those kind to Microsoft admit that Vista is bloated and buggy. Adoption is slow.The public demanded XP be installed by default. This is the first time there was such a major backlash against a major Microsoft release.
6) Even after shameless bribing and ballot stuffing, Microsoft loses the first round in the OOXML approval process.
7) GPLv3 approved. This should have put an end to the Microsoft/Novell scam. But it didn't, the Microsoft/Novell scam was "grandfathered" in.
8) Patent troll Acacia sues Redhat, just two days after two top Microsoft executives leave to join Acacia.
9) After more than four years, Federal Judge Dale Kimball *finally* rules that The SCO Group does not own UNIX. The plain language of TSG's contract with Novell made it perfectly obvious that TSG did not own UNIX, and Kimball could have ruled on this years earlier. Considering that The SCO Group never had any evidence what-so-ever, no standing, and no prima-facia case, the length of time required for this ruling is, in my opinion, inexcusable. This ruling has not stopped The SCO Group from claiming they own UNIX - maybe in another four years. Still, this is some progress.
Msft has dominated desktop office apps for about two decades. So, of course, google is not going not put msft out of business overnight.
To me, millions of users, and thousands of organization paying for premium service; seems like amazing progress against a ruthless monopoly like msft.
If msft ever gets down to 75% of the office app market, then msft will not be able dictate "standards." I think that may be why msie8 is actually supposed to use real standards.
By now, the sco-scum are ready to toast their success, accept big fat going away bonuses, and move on to their next scam.
2007 was another stellar year. I'm sure Darl is still enjoying his $34K per month salary. But the scam is closing in on it's fith year, and everything must come to an end.
No need to worry about msft, I'm sure there are plenty of acacias out there to help msft with their fud-spewing PR stunts.
Scog is still spewing fud, still claiming to own the UNIX operating system. If nothing else, all issues about who owns what, and who can and can not be sued, and who owes what to who for the right to use whatever; have been thoroghly confused. For example, The Economist hardly got anything right. Except for a tiny handful of people who following this case very closely, nobody understand the truth of the situration at all. Most PHBs are just left with a vauge, uneasy, feeling about FOSS being a legal mine-field; which is just what msft wanted.
As I posted on groklaw, the SEC seems to be more than fair to scog. Martha Stewart tells one lie, and does time in prison. Darl LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, hundreds of times, to the SEC, the court, the media, the public; and the SEC just looks the other way.
Oh well, at least one msft PR stunt is winding down. Plenty more where that came from.
There are many mistakes in the section about "SCO."
The trend toward openness has been given added impetus by the recent collapse of the legal battles brought by SCO, a software developer. Formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, the firm bought the Unix operating system and core technology in 1995 from Novell (which, in turn, had bought it from its original developer, AT&T).
The company is not named "SCO" the name is "The SCO Group" and The SCO Group (TSG) was not formerly known as "Santa Cruz Operations." The SCO Group was formerly known as Caldera. Santa Cruz Operations is now known as Tarentella Inc.
Caldera may have bought some assets from Santa Cruz Operations, but Caldera never bought he Unix operating system - this was determined about six months ago by a USA federal judge named Dale Kimball.
Short of cash, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits against companies developing Linux software, claiming it contained chunks of copyrighted Unix code. Pressured by worried customers fearing prosecution, a handful of Linux distributors settled with SCO just to stay in business.
I have followed this case fairly closely since day one. I do not think any Linux distributors settled with The SCO Group. A hosting company called EV1 gave TSG an unspecified sum, but that exchange is highly suspect. Microsoft was been funnelling money to TSG since the beginning, and the EV1 deal appears to be just another Microsoft vehicle.
But IBM, which uses Linux, was having none of it, and fought the firm through the courts until it won.
IBM did not just decide to fight TSG. TSG sued IBM. Although TSG has filed chapter 11, the case is not over.
The following is my letter to the editors of The Economist:
----
To: letters@economist.com
There are many mistakes in the section about "SCO."
>>The trend toward openness has been given added impetus by the recent collapse of the legal battles brought by SCO, a software developer. Formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, the firm bought the Unix operating system and core technology in 1995 from Novell (which, in turn, had bought it from its original developer, AT&T). >Short of cash, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits against companies developing Linux software, claiming it contained chunks of copyrighted Unix code. Pressured by worried customers fearing prosecution, a handful of Linux distributors settled with SCO just to stay in business.>But IBM, which uses Linux, was having none of it, and fought the firm through the courts until it won.
IBM did not just decide to fight TSG. TSG sued IBM. Although TSG has filed chapter 11, the case is not over.
It's just Dan Lyin' Lyons. I doubt Apple cares one way or the other.
But it sure gets danny a lot of free publicity. Danny is a pure fiction writer. Danny is laughing up his sleeve right now, because of the slashdotters he fooled.
> Apple was offering him some money (in the wake of the ThinkSecret shutdown) to close down his blog.
The scox-scum made millions from their extortion efforts. Seems clear that msft is behind Acacia bogo lawsuit agiant Redhat as well. Looks like Lyons was offered some extortion loot as well.
With real estate in the toilet, and IT jobs getting offshored, and all. I think extortion may be the new growth industry.
Think about it: there is no down side. You have people pay you to not file nuisance lawsuits against them. How can you lose?
to test technical knowledge. I mean, isn't that the whole point of having dozens of different security certifications?
If a candidate has the gold standard: CISSP. Then there can be no question of his/her technical knowledge, or experperience.
Right?
When? 2012? 2022? And how many people care?
on
HTML V5 and XHTML V2
·
· Score: 1
If these standards are not going to be completed until 2012, or later, that just means that the web will be even more entrenched in old standards, and people will be even more reluctant to change.
Very few people pay attention to the current standards. Why is anybody going to pay attention the new "standards" ?
This article compares one msft product to another msft-product. Either way, msft wins. How is this anti-msft?
2) Slashdot is not rabidly anti-msft. Far *far* from it. Often, when an OOXML, or Vista, article is discussed, the forums are flooded with pro-msft zealots, and all the pro-msft are modded way up, and the anti-msft posts are all modded way down. It happens all the time. Five years ago, slashdot may have been anti-msft, but not anymore.
Ripped from groklaw posts regarding Denmark's decision (also applies here):
Even if MSOOXML gets the ISO stamp, it doesn't make it "open", merely a standard. On the "open" front it's pretty much pretense all the way. Not that ISO even pretends to usually care if a standard is open or not, even if in this case even they seem to be party to the shell game....open standards in all new IT solutions, unless it will significantly increase the costs of the project. - new Office, not really ooxml: $$$ - new OpenOffice.org: Free
Moreover, all authorities must be able to receive office documents in two open document standards - namely ODF and OOXML. This allows citizens to communicate with government using open standards. - rx ODF with OpenOffice.org: True - rx OOXML with any version of MSOFFice: false
The openness of a standard implies that: * the standard must be fully documented and publicly available; - ODF: True - OOXML: False, proposed "standard" includes by reference undocumented components
* the standard must be freely implementable without economic, political or legal constraints on its implementation and use, now or in the future; - ODF: True - OOXML: False Legal Constraints
* the standard should be managed and maintained in an open forum via an open process (standardisation organisation). - ODF: True - OOXML: False see recent articles on OOXML Bait and Switch
People have been saying that for years. Long before Vista was officially released, I was reading it everywhere: "don't upgrade until SP1 has been released."
With Vista sucking so bad, the upgrade cycle was not fast as msft wanted. So to eliminate at least one reason for not "upgrading" msft released SP1.
Sure, SP1 sucks. At best SP1 is useless. But, it's there. So upgrade already! Dammit!
Has it been in a bond flick yet?
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 1
I think another poster commented that this has been in a bond flick, but I don't remember it.
Many people look forward to the day when computer users are not victimized by msft's illegal and oppressive business practises. That doesn't mean that anybody is predicting Linux "taking over." I have not read one post that claims that Linux has already taken over. Not one single post.
Yet, your post is modded up to a 4 - how peculiar. Softies whine about a linux bias on slashdot. But the truth is the bashers are far more numerous, and the pro-msft posts are modded much higher. Just look at this thread.
This happens all the time with msft hot-button issues discussed on slashdot. Pro-msft posts are modded way up, anti-msft posts are modded way down. And yeah, the msft shills flood the place.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't kid yourself, religion and science use entirely different standards to decide what is true. Science uses logic and evidence, religion uses faith and dogma. Dogma is defined as "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof."
Science may not have an answer for everything, science has made mistakes, not every accepted theory can be 100% proven. But religion does not even try to prove anything, religion requires you to accept what is proclaimed without any attempt of evidence, or logic, what-so-ever. With religion, it's true just because somebody said so - no other reason.
Don't let yourself be fooled by an argument of ignorance. Don't think "if science doesn't have every answer that proves religion to be true." Because that is just illogical.
What is known about science is backed by hard evidence - religion has no such standard.
I don't mean to offend anybody, but law enforcement, and private investigating, are not the most accedemically demanding professions. Yet many in those fields feel vastly more qualified than any techno-weenie.
I think it would be great fun for PIs to have an idea of what the techies really have to know. I would be willing to bet, a lot of them couldn't handle it.
Anybody in Colorado can be PI. I think there are few states that don't require a license.
My debian etch VPS takes up less than 12mb ram, and less 500mb HDD space. The hardware requirements for Server-2008 are astronomical by comparison. But, if you are running some huge commercial site, I don't suppose the hardware requirements are a big deal.
Msft has been playing the format shuffle game for decades. How many times does msft get to fool everybody with the same trick? Come on, we have all seen this dozens of times from msft. Maybe silverfish works with firefox *now*. But what about two years from now?
Look at msft's insanely agressive battle against ODF: bribes, ballot stuffing, forcing Peter Quinn's resignation, and so on.
Controlling the standards is the very core of msft's business model. With msft it's all about vendor lock, and forced upgrades, strategic incompatiblity, using one product to force apodtion of another, and so on. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm sick to death of msft's gaming. And no, other companies do not play the same game.
IMO: you would have to be stupid to trust msft to not exploit an internet standard.
> Now for some odd reason a large group of people come along and say "we want magic" and expect the input/output and storage models to be disassociated. How is that supposed to work?
So you saying that standards can not possibly work? That people want "magic?"
Hate to break it to you, but standards already work. Consider ASCII. Also ODF is already incorporated in several word processors.
Of course input/output and storage models can be disassociated, it's done all of the time.
Somebody had to say it.
1) OLPC starts shipping; sales under G1G1 program exceed 150,000 units (number does not include sales to governments).
2) Dell ships Ubuntu loaded PCs.
3) Other computer manufacturers follow Dell's lead in preinstalling Linux on inexpensive laptops; Wal-Mart sells out of the 10,000 units of the model they carry in less than two weeks
4) Samba/Microsoft agreement defangs Microsoft's patent FUD
5) MS-Vista bombs. After years of delays, MS-Vista finally debuts. Even those kind to Microsoft admit that Vista is bloated and buggy. Adoption is slow.The public demanded XP be installed by default. This is the first time there was such a major backlash against a major Microsoft release.
6) Even after shameless bribing and ballot stuffing, Microsoft loses the first round in the OOXML approval process.
7) GPLv3 approved. This should have put an end to the Microsoft/Novell scam. But it didn't, the Microsoft/Novell scam was "grandfathered" in.
8) Patent troll Acacia sues Redhat, just two days after two top Microsoft executives leave to join Acacia.
9) After more than four years, Federal Judge Dale Kimball *finally* rules that The SCO Group does not own UNIX. The plain language of TSG's contract with Novell made it perfectly obvious that TSG did not own UNIX, and Kimball could have ruled on this years earlier. Considering that The SCO Group never had any evidence what-so-ever, no standing, and no prima-facia case, the length of time required for this ruling is, in my opinion, inexcusable. This ruling has not stopped The SCO Group from claiming they own UNIX - maybe in another four years. Still, this is some progress.
10)ASUS eee PC.
The article seems hopelessly confused.
The article seems to suggest that if open standards are used, all of your medical records will be wide open. That does not make any sense at all.
The openness of the standards has nothing to do with the openness of the records.
Catch 22, remember? Milo, msft, what's the difference?
Msft has dominated desktop office apps for about two decades. So, of course, google is not going not put msft out of business overnight.
To me, millions of users, and thousands of organization paying for premium service; seems like amazing progress against a ruthless monopoly like msft.
If msft ever gets down to 75% of the office app market, then msft will not be able dictate "standards." I think that may be why msie8 is actually supposed to use real standards.
By now, the sco-scum are ready to toast their success, accept big fat going away bonuses, and move on to their next scam.
2007 was another stellar year. I'm sure Darl is still enjoying his $34K per month salary. But the scam is closing in on it's fith year, and everything must come to an end.
No need to worry about msft, I'm sure there are plenty of acacias out there to help msft with their fud-spewing PR stunts.
Scog is still spewing fud, still claiming to own the UNIX operating system. If nothing else, all issues about who owns what, and who can and can not be sued, and who owes what to who for the right to use whatever; have been thoroghly confused. For example, The Economist hardly got anything right. Except for a tiny handful of people who following this case very closely, nobody understand the truth of the situration at all. Most PHBs are just left with a vauge, uneasy, feeling about FOSS being a legal mine-field; which is just what msft wanted.
As I posted on groklaw, the SEC seems to be more than fair to scog. Martha Stewart tells one lie, and does time in prison. Darl LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES, hundreds of times, to the SEC, the court, the
media, the public; and the SEC just looks the other way.
Oh well, at least one msft PR stunt is winding down. Plenty more where that came from.
Sorry, post was messed up, trying again:
To: letters@economist.com
There are many mistakes in the section about "SCO."
The trend toward openness has been given added impetus by the recent collapse of the legal battles brought by SCO, a software developer. Formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, the firm bought the Unix operating system and core technology in 1995 from Novell (which, in turn, had bought it from its original developer, AT&T).
The company is not named "SCO" the name is "The SCO Group" and The SCO Group (TSG) was not formerly known as "Santa Cruz Operations." The SCO Group was formerly known as Caldera. Santa Cruz Operations is now known as Tarentella Inc.
Caldera may have bought some assets from Santa Cruz Operations, but Caldera never bought he Unix operating system - this was determined about six months ago by a USA federal judge named Dale Kimball.
Short of cash, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits against companies developing Linux software, claiming it contained chunks of copyrighted Unix code. Pressured by worried customers fearing prosecution, a handful of Linux distributors settled with SCO just to stay in business.
I have followed this case fairly closely since day one. I do not think any Linux distributors settled with The SCO Group. A hosting company called EV1 gave TSG an unspecified sum, but that exchange is highly suspect. Microsoft was been funnelling money to TSG since the beginning, and the EV1 deal appears to be just another Microsoft vehicle.
But IBM, which uses Linux, was having none of it, and fought the firm through the courts until it won.
IBM did not just decide to fight TSG. TSG sued IBM. Although TSG has filed chapter 11, the case is not over.
Please check your facts on this.
The following is my letter to the editors of The Economist:
----
To: letters@economist.com
There are many mistakes in the section about "SCO."
>>The trend toward openness has been given added impetus by the recent collapse of the legal battles brought by SCO, a software developer. Formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, the firm bought the Unix operating system and core technology in 1995 from Novell (which, in turn, had bought it from its original developer, AT&T). >Short of cash, SCO initiated a series of lawsuits against companies developing Linux software, claiming it contained chunks of copyrighted Unix code. Pressured by worried customers fearing prosecution, a handful of Linux distributors settled with SCO just to stay in business.>But IBM, which uses Linux, was having none of it, and fought the firm through the courts until it won.
IBM did not just decide to fight TSG. TSG sued IBM. Although TSG has filed chapter 11, the case is not over.
Please check your facts on this.
It's just Dan Lyin' Lyons. I doubt Apple cares one way or the other.
But it sure gets danny a lot of free publicity. Danny is a pure fiction writer. Danny is laughing up his sleeve right now, because of the slashdotters he fooled.
> Apple was offering him some money (in the wake of the ThinkSecret shutdown) to close down his blog.
The scox-scum made millions from their extortion efforts. Seems clear that msft is behind Acacia bogo lawsuit agiant Redhat as well. Looks like Lyons was offered some extortion loot as well.
With real estate in the toilet, and IT jobs getting offshored, and all. I think extortion may be the new growth industry.
Think about it: there is no down side. You have people pay you to not file nuisance lawsuits against them. How can you lose?
to test technical knowledge. I mean, isn't that the whole point of having dozens of different security certifications?
If a candidate has the gold standard: CISSP. Then there can be no question of his/her technical knowledge, or experperience.
Right?
If these standards are not going to be completed until 2012, or later, that just means that the web will be even more entrenched in old standards, and people will be even more reluctant to change.
Very few people pay attention to the current standards. Why is anybody going to pay attention the new "standards" ?
As long as browsers support slop, developers will write slop. A browser that doesn't support slop, won't be used.
This article compares one msft product to another msft-product. Either way, msft wins. How is this anti-msft?
2) Slashdot is not rabidly anti-msft. Far *far* from it. Often, when an OOXML, or Vista, article is discussed, the forums are flooded with pro-msft zealots, and all the pro-msft are modded way up, and the anti-msft posts are all modded way down. It happens all the time. Five years ago, slashdot may have been anti-msft, but not anymore.
Ripped from groklaw posts regarding Denmark's decision (also applies here):
...open standards in all new IT solutions, unless it will significantly increase
Even if MSOOXML gets the ISO stamp, it doesn't make it "open", merely
a standard. On the "open" front it's pretty much pretense all the way.
Not that ISO even pretends to usually care if a standard is open or not, even if
in this case even they seem to be party to the shell game.
the costs of the project.
- new Office, not really ooxml: $$$
- new OpenOffice.org: Free
Moreover, all authorities must be able to receive office documents in two open
document standards - namely ODF and OOXML. This allows citizens to communicate
with government using open standards.
- rx ODF with OpenOffice.org: True
- rx OOXML with any version of MSOFFice: false
The openness of a standard implies that:
* the standard must be fully documented and publicly available;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False, proposed "standard" includes by reference
undocumented components
* the standard must be freely implementable without economic, political or legal
constraints on its implementation and use, now or in the future;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False Legal Constraints
* the standard should be managed and maintained in an open forum via an open
process (standardisation organisation).
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False see recent articles on OOXML Bait and Switch
People have been saying that for years. Long before Vista was officially released, I was reading it everywhere: "don't upgrade until SP1 has been released."
With Vista sucking so bad, the upgrade cycle was not fast as msft wanted. So to eliminate at least one reason for not "upgrading" msft released SP1.
Sure, SP1 sucks. At best SP1 is useless. But, it's there. So upgrade already! Dammit!
I think another poster commented that this has been in a bond flick, but I don't remember it.
Many people look forward to the day when computer users are not victimized by msft's illegal and oppressive business practises. That doesn't mean that anybody is predicting Linux "taking over." I have not read one post that claims that Linux has already taken over. Not one single post.
Yet, your post is modded up to a 4 - how peculiar. Softies whine about a linux bias on slashdot. But the truth is the bashers are far more numerous, and the pro-msft posts are modded much higher. Just look at this thread.
Your post, for example, was modded down.
This happens all the time with msft hot-button issues discussed on slashdot. Pro-msft posts are modded way up, anti-msft posts are modded way down. And yeah, the msft shills flood the place.