Take a deck of cards. Shuffle as long as you want. Draw 52 cards in any order from that deck. What are the odds that it came up in that order? Before you drew the cards, the odds were 52! Once they are drawn the odds are 100%
You seem to be under the impression that this would bother the FSF. If the FSF had wanted to release the application under the BSD license then that's what they would have done.
The rights that the FSF are trying to protect are currently not protected. Remotely removing the application would have no impact on these rights.
All better?
No. All better would be if Apple changed their licensing terms. But not worst than the current situation either.
The reason for starting the post with "IANAL" was to highlight the fact that I'm not actually qualified to provide legal information. I'm just trying to use common sense.
Now that we've established that my opinion is basically worthless on this matter:-), here's what I think:
QoS reflects poorly on the ISP when not used properly. I would like to think that if directed at a particular individual or company, the ISP could be sued.
Are you aware of any law (even in the US) that grants websites the right not to be altered by the ISP?
Would slander or libel apply? As I said IANAL but I'm pretty sure there are laws that exist to stop a company from posing as another especially if it's making the second company look bad.
IANAL but I don't think you are allowed to misrepresent yourself that way. The user has every reason to believe that the search result comes from Google and this has a direct impact on how Google will be perceived.
Most religions do good, many help save millions from famine, help educated countless poor children and generally bring together communities.
Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that there is more good than bad. What makes you think that religions are required for doing good? There are several secular organizations that are "doing good."
The way I see it, adding a religious agenda to a humanitarian cause only adds barriers.
Yes, there are. Its called the Torah and Old Testament; on which Islam is entirely based.
First you claim that you can read and understand then you demonstrate your inability to do so. An axiom is a something to be taken as truth either because it is self-evident or as a basis for a discussion. You can't take the Old Testament and the Torah which are volumes and contain contradictions and use them as axioms. The closest thing you'd find to an axiom in the Old Testament is the 10 commandments. However, depending on the version of the bible you select, they differ.
Seriously, before you bother to spew more fallacies, bother to learn some recent history. It wasn't even until the 60s or 70s that Islam was so widely "re-interpreted" by extremists such that we have the modern Muslim terrorists.
Since Islam is a re-interpretation of the New Testament which itself is supposed to supersede the Old Testament. Since the New Testament is an amalgamation of books selected somewhat arbitrarily, how exactly can you tell who has the proper interpretation.
I prefer your interpretation to theirs if it means I won't get blown to pieces but my preferences don't matter - if it did, we'd all be atheists and finding other reasons to kill each other. Anyone can have their own interpretation and nothing makes yours more accurate than those of others. You're all interpreting fairy tells as far as I'm concerned. But, you can't see that. You refuse to see that.
you can be in a religion and not be a brainless zealot.
Yes you can. Being brilliant in one thing doesn't stop someone from being totally wrong in something else.
You're, assuming no one actually reads and comprehends.
Given that there are countless interpretations; Given that there are no axioms that Muslins, or other religious groups, can actually rely on; Given that the authors are all dead and didn't provide Coles notes; Given that the texts are usually translations and that not all translations are the same; I would say that my assumptions that the text cannot be interpreted is very well founded.
But since people can read and the majority of Muslims are not extremists, who also completely agree with my statement...
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. That fact that you use it is in contradiction with your argument that people can read and comprehend
its safe to say my statements are completely accurate and yours are, well, seemingly very biased, misleading, and completely inaccurate.
They might seem that way to you. The fact that you pretend to know what the texts are saying tells me I'm right. You believe your interpretation to be right and so does the next guy. You might say murder is wrong but you'll also find arguments to allow it. You say that the Muslim religion is based on three books that contradict each other and pretend that YOU know how to interpret it.
In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.
In short as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who pretend to know what to believe and those who follow. There is no right and wrong group. There's only wrong and wrong.
True followers of Islam are extremely peaceful and also accept both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as many of the Christian Gospels, as tenets of faith and articles to be read and understood.
You cannot possibly know what true followers of Islams are like because you don't get to decide what a true believer is. Are you trying to say that your interpretation is better? You sound like the fortune teller who claims that reading tea leaves is much more accurate than astrology. I agree that not all Muslims are dangerous but unfortunately it's the religion itself that is dangerous.
I don't understand this. You call their religion a disease and a delusion and you think that doesn't insult them? OK. Maybe not as much as calling their beloved prophet a pedophile but still. Also, how often do you meet religious extremists?
Rereading my comment, I realize that it doesn't express the message I wanted to convey very well.
I didn't RTFA in detail. I saw a few people asleep on the job, realized that I probably wouldn't get enough details to make an objective assessment and started reading the comments here.
My comment was directed more at the idea that was being presented here that companies should make money for their shareholders at any cost. I should have made it clear that I don't necessarily agree with the presumption that Microsoft is exploiting anyone. Sorry for the confusion.
A big corporation makes money by exploiting people. Someone comments that the board of directors of that company should not tolerate a practice of making money for money's sake.
c6gunner claims that the board of director can't do that because somehow the shareholders wouldn't appreciate it.
AC says
Fuck the shareholders
Personally, I read that as saying fuck the shareholders that want to exploit others in order to make a few more dollars. I agree. Some companies actually spell out that they will not go against certain principals. Shareholders should be wise enough to understand this. I'm sure there are many Microsoft shareholders that didn't vote for Microsoft to exploit their employees.
I'd like to think that people could be trusted to do the right thing. For example, if a person had too much to drink, then they shouldn't drive. Similarly, if their eyesight has deteriorated passed a certain level. It just doesn't happen.
The argument that people should be held accountable if they damage someone else's property is flawed as well. It doesn't take into account that it's very likely that the person who damaged the property doesn't have the means or ability to repair that property. If they kill or severely injure someone then there's no way to make reparation.
The constitution you speak of was written by men. These men were not perfect. They might have done a pretty remarkable job but I believe they made mistakes. I also believe that your constitution has been challenged before and will be challenged again. Arguing that your constitution gives you certain rights is different from saying that this is what should be. Defending a right because it is enshrined in your constitution is valid in your courts but it doesn't mean that the right should have been granted in the first place.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd also prefer that the government doesn't interfere or that it interferes as little as possible when it comes to individual rights. I'm just trying to explain why your arguments have failed to convince me.
I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.
Does that apply only to guns? How do you feel about driving a car? Don't you agree that people should pass some kind of test before they are allowed to drive a car on a public road?
I don't believe that the idea is to ban driving or guns outright. Some of these hoops are just sanity checks to limit the number of careless and unqualified drivers and gun owners.
Although you may look at it as "Americans have the additional right of anonymous free speech" you could also look at it as "Americans lack the right to find out who is responsible for making improper comments about them."
However, to be clear, I think that freedom of anonymous speech should have priority.
The statement "God exists" is not, at present, empirically falsifiable. Somehow you're twisting that idea to mean that God must therefore not exist.
In other words, you're assuming "not falsifiable" is equivalent to "not true". Surely you can see the problem with that absurd leap of logic?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that non-falsifiable means not true; In fact, I am certain that there are several non-falsifiable statements that are true. What I said was that arguments that hold for falsifiable statements may not hold for non-falsifiable ones. In the case of the existence of gods, there are several issues other than the non-falsifiable part. For example, as I have stated, the number of theories is unlimited. Also, people that belong to a faith generally don't agree on just what the religion is; Is there an heaven? Hell?
it's silly of you to continue to pretend your opinion is absolute fact.
Using that argument, as I've said, it would also be silly to claim that there's no Easter Bunny.
on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances.
... and that's where your argument falls apart. That is not fact; you call it knowledge, but it's merely opinion.
See, you have no evidence that your opinion is correct, so you cannot call it "knowledge".
It is knowledge deduced from facts. In a sense, it's impossible to prove a negative but let's try an exercise. I claim that if you pick a random number from 0 to infinity, I can guess that number. Of course I won't actually give you that number. You have to believe that I know which number you picked. You can't "prove" that I'm a liar but we both know it for a "fact".
The difference between theories about the universe and the existence of a god is that the former are falsifiable. In the end it makes a big difference. Arguments that hold for falsifiable theories may not hold for non-falsifiable ones.
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
Wait. Your complaint is that no god has given moral guidance to us, and then you turn around and state - as if it were proven fact - that every religion which claims god has given us moral guidance is just making it up?
You don't admit the possibility that even one of these religions may be correct?
You don't see the problem with that argument? It's merely "I don't believe their claims", not "no gods have given us moral guidance" as you've claimed.
Are you saying that some god somewhere has provided moral guidance? If you are then which one? How do you know? Why do you pretend that these guidelines are the correct one?
I'm basing my argument that religions make up the guidances on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances. Call me cynical but if 1000 religions all claim different rules, then at least 999 are making them up. My odds are pretty good that the remaining religion is making it up as well since there's no bound to the number of religions. And this assumes that there is a god to begin with.
It's fine to say you don't believe any religion's claims - I won't argue with you - but don't pretend your opinion is fact.
Not being able to pretend that god doesn't exist would also stop one from claiming that there's no Easter Bunny. If you claim that there's no Easter Bunny, then consider my claim maintained.
My personal opinion, which is almost certainly an extreme one, and not one I expect people to ever take seriously, is that all religions wishing to influence legislation should register as political parties or lobby groups, and lose their religious privileges in the eyes of the law.
My opinion might be considered extreme but I don't understand why religious groups should have any particular privileges. I think that religious groups shouldn't even be allowed to be considered charitable organizations. They could start charitable organizations and participate in them but charitable organizations should not have religious agendas (IMHO).
... people find it easier to believe there is no God than to change their behavior to match the morals taught by whichever god in whom they would otherwise believe.
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
Would you always need a free core? Since they are doing pre-allocation, the allocator thread could be allocating some of the memory during the I/O cycles of the application thread. The gain may not be large enough for improvement overall but it might offset the overhead. Similarly, by pooling the free requests, executing them in a separate thread might provide some gains even with a single core. ?
The current behavior is absolutely infuriating if you're trying to get something done.
Sometimes it is. On the other hand, I like that NoScript can be updated before I start to browse. Sometimes there can be quite a delay in between sessions so I prefer that all the protections are active. For IETab, since it's only used for trusted sites, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. For Firefox itself it's yet another preference.
Chrome doesn't even open a modal dialog if it crashed last session. It just pops up a notification at the top of the screen asking if you want to restore your tabs...
Let me rephrase then. What is the better default behavior given that there is an option to alter said behavior if you don't like it?
The default behavior attempts to keep Firefox as up to date as possible. It also tries to recover from the browser crashing or some other misfortune. If I need to go in a hurry, I can close the browser and it will reopen where I left off.
Your argument seems to be that people are imbeciles if they don't have the same priorities you do. I don't subscribe to that point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle as long as you want. Draw 52 cards in any order from that deck. What are the odds that it came up in that order? Before you drew the cards, the odds were 52! Once they are drawn the odds are 100%
My router runs Linux. Can I transfer the firmware from one router to another without Linksys (or whatever) trying to stop me? No.
What makes you think you can't?
You seem to be under the impression that this would bother the FSF. If the FSF had wanted to release the application under the BSD license then that's what they would have done.
The rights that the FSF are trying to protect are currently not protected. Remotely removing the application would have no impact on these rights.
All better?
No. All better would be if Apple changed their licensing terms. But not worst than the current situation either.
Love you too.
The reason for starting the post with "IANAL" was to highlight the fact that I'm not actually qualified to provide legal information. I'm just trying to use common sense.
Now that we've established that my opinion is basically worthless on this matter :-), here's what I think:
QoS reflects poorly on the ISP when not used properly. I would like to think that if directed at a particular individual or company, the ISP could be sued.
Are you aware of any law (even in the US) that grants websites the right not to be altered by the ISP?
Would slander or libel apply? As I said IANAL but I'm pretty sure there are laws that exist to stop a company from posing as another especially if it's making the second company look bad.
IANAL but I don't think you are allowed to misrepresent yourself that way. The user has every reason to believe that the search result comes from Google and this has a direct impact on how Google will be perceived.
Most religions do good, many help save millions from famine, help educated countless poor children and generally bring together communities.
Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that there is more good than bad. What makes you think that religions are required for doing good? There are several secular organizations that are "doing good."
The way I see it, adding a religious agenda to a humanitarian cause only adds barriers.
Given that there are no axioms
Yes, there are. Its called the Torah and Old Testament; on which Islam is entirely based.
First you claim that you can read and understand then you demonstrate your inability to do so. An axiom is a something to be taken as truth either because it is self-evident or as a basis for a discussion. You can't take the Old Testament and the Torah which are volumes and contain contradictions and use them as axioms. The closest thing you'd find to an axiom in the Old Testament is the 10 commandments. However, depending on the version of the bible you select, they differ.
Seriously, before you bother to spew more fallacies, bother to learn some recent history. It wasn't even until the 60s or 70s that Islam was so widely "re-interpreted" by extremists such that we have the modern Muslim terrorists.
Since Islam is a re-interpretation of the New Testament which itself is supposed to supersede the Old Testament. Since the New Testament is an amalgamation of books selected somewhat arbitrarily, how exactly can you tell who has the proper interpretation.
I prefer your interpretation to theirs if it means I won't get blown to pieces but my preferences don't matter - if it did, we'd all be atheists and finding other reasons to kill each other. Anyone can have their own interpretation and nothing makes yours more accurate than those of others. You're all interpreting fairy tells as far as I'm concerned. But, you can't see that. You refuse to see that.
you can be in a religion and not be a brainless zealot.
Yes you can. Being brilliant in one thing doesn't stop someone from being totally wrong in something else.
You're, assuming no one actually reads and comprehends.
Given that there are countless interpretations; Given that there are no axioms that Muslins, or other religious groups, can actually rely on; Given that the authors are all dead and didn't provide Coles notes; Given that the texts are usually translations and that not all translations are the same; I would say that my assumptions that the text cannot be interpreted is very well founded.
But since people can read and the majority of Muslims are not extremists, who also completely agree with my statement...
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. That fact that you use it is in contradiction with your argument that people can read and comprehend
its safe to say my statements are completely accurate and yours are, well, seemingly very biased, misleading, and completely inaccurate.
They might seem that way to you. The fact that you pretend to know what the texts are saying tells me I'm right. You believe your interpretation to be right and so does the next guy. You might say murder is wrong but you'll also find arguments to allow it. You say that the Muslim religion is based on three books that contradict each other and pretend that YOU know how to interpret it.
I think you're just proving my point.
In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.
In short as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who pretend to know what to believe and those who follow. There is no right and wrong group. There's only wrong and wrong.
True followers of Islam are extremely peaceful and also accept both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as many of the Christian Gospels, as tenets of faith and articles to be read and understood.
You cannot possibly know what true followers of Islams are like because you don't get to decide what a true believer is. Are you trying to say that your interpretation is better? You sound like the fortune teller who claims that reading tea leaves is much more accurate than astrology. I agree that not all Muslims are dangerous but unfortunately it's the religion itself that is dangerous.
I don't understand this. You call their religion a disease and a delusion and you think that doesn't insult them? OK. Maybe not as much as calling their beloved prophet a pedophile but still. Also, how often do you meet religious extremists?
Rereading my comment, I realize that it doesn't express the message I wanted to convey very well.
I didn't RTFA in detail. I saw a few people asleep on the job, realized that I probably wouldn't get enough details to make an objective assessment and started reading the comments here.
My comment was directed more at the idea that was being presented here that companies should make money for their shareholders at any cost. I should have made it clear that I don't necessarily agree with the presumption that Microsoft is exploiting anyone. Sorry for the confusion.
As for the rest of your comment, I didn't read it.
FYI, I did read it. It was quite interesting and very thoughtful.
Let's put some context into this.
A big corporation makes money by exploiting people. Someone comments that the board of directors of that company should not tolerate a practice of making money for money's sake.
c6gunner claims that the board of director can't do that because somehow the shareholders wouldn't appreciate it.
AC says
Fuck the shareholders
Personally, I read that as saying fuck the shareholders that want to exploit others in order to make a few more dollars. I agree. Some companies actually spell out that they will not go against certain principals. Shareholders should be wise enough to understand this. I'm sure there are many Microsoft shareholders that didn't vote for Microsoft to exploit their employees.
I'd like to think that people could be trusted to do the right thing. For example, if a person had too much to drink, then they shouldn't drive. Similarly, if their eyesight has deteriorated passed a certain level. It just doesn't happen.
The argument that people should be held accountable if they damage someone else's property is flawed as well. It doesn't take into account that it's very likely that the person who damaged the property doesn't have the means or ability to repair that property. If they kill or severely injure someone then there's no way to make reparation.
The constitution you speak of was written by men. These men were not perfect. They might have done a pretty remarkable job but I believe they made mistakes. I also believe that your constitution has been challenged before and will be challenged again. Arguing that your constitution gives you certain rights is different from saying that this is what should be. Defending a right because it is enshrined in your constitution is valid in your courts but it doesn't mean that the right should have been granted in the first place.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd also prefer that the government doesn't interfere or that it interferes as little as possible when it comes to individual rights. I'm just trying to explain why your arguments have failed to convince me.
I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.
Does that apply only to guns? How do you feel about driving a car? Don't you agree that people should pass some kind of test before they are allowed to drive a car on a public road?
I don't believe that the idea is to ban driving or guns outright. Some of these hoops are just sanity checks to limit the number of careless and unqualified drivers and gun owners.
Although you may look at it as "Americans have the additional right of anonymous free speech" you could also look at it as "Americans lack the right to find out who is responsible for making improper comments about them."
However, to be clear, I think that freedom of anonymous speech should have priority.
The statement "God exists" is not, at present, empirically falsifiable. Somehow you're twisting that idea to mean that God must therefore not exist.
In other words, you're assuming "not falsifiable" is equivalent to "not true". Surely you can see the problem with that absurd leap of logic?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that non-falsifiable means not true; In fact, I am certain that there are several non-falsifiable statements that are true. What I said was that arguments that hold for falsifiable statements may not hold for non-falsifiable ones. In the case of the existence of gods, there are several issues other than the non-falsifiable part. For example, as I have stated, the number of theories is unlimited. Also, people that belong to a faith generally don't agree on just what the religion is; Is there an heaven? Hell?
it's silly of you to continue to pretend your opinion is absolute fact.
Using that argument, as I've said, it would also be silly to claim that there's no Easter Bunny.
on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances.
... and that's where your argument falls apart. That is not fact; you call it knowledge, but it's merely opinion.
See, you have no evidence that your opinion is correct, so you cannot call it "knowledge".
It is knowledge deduced from facts. In a sense, it's impossible to prove a negative but let's try an exercise. I claim that if you pick a random number from 0 to infinity, I can guess that number. Of course I won't actually give you that number. You have to believe that I know which number you picked. You can't "prove" that I'm a liar but we both know it for a "fact".
The difference between theories about the universe and the existence of a god is that the former are falsifiable. In the end it makes a big difference. Arguments that hold for falsifiable theories may not hold for non-falsifiable ones.
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
Wait. Your complaint is that no god has given moral guidance to us, and then you turn around and state - as if it were proven fact - that every religion which claims god has given us moral guidance is just making it up?
You don't admit the possibility that even one of these religions may be correct?
You don't see the problem with that argument? It's merely "I don't believe their claims", not "no gods have given us moral guidance" as you've claimed.
Are you saying that some god somewhere has provided moral guidance? If you are then which one? How do you know? Why do you pretend that these guidelines are the correct one?
I'm basing my argument that religions make up the guidances on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances. Call me cynical but if 1000 religions all claim different rules, then at least 999 are making them up. My odds are pretty good that the remaining religion is making it up as well since there's no bound to the number of religions. And this assumes that there is a god to begin with.
It's fine to say you don't believe any religion's claims - I won't argue with you - but don't pretend your opinion is fact.
Not being able to pretend that god doesn't exist would also stop one from claiming that there's no Easter Bunny. If you claim that there's no Easter Bunny, then consider my claim maintained.
My personal opinion, which is almost certainly an extreme one, and not one I expect people to ever take seriously, is that all religions wishing to influence legislation should register as political parties or lobby groups, and lose their religious privileges in the eyes of the law.
My opinion might be considered extreme but I don't understand why religious groups should have any particular privileges. I think that religious groups shouldn't even be allowed to be considered charitable organizations. They could start charitable organizations and participate in them but charitable organizations should not have religious agendas (IMHO).
... people find it easier to believe there is no God than to change their behavior to match the morals taught by whichever god in whom they would otherwise believe.
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
Would you always need a free core? Since they are doing pre-allocation, the allocator thread could be allocating some of the memory during the I/O cycles of the application thread. The gain may not be large enough for improvement overall but it might offset the overhead. Similarly, by pooling the free requests, executing them in a separate thread might provide some gains even with a single core. ?
The current behavior is absolutely infuriating if you're trying to get something done.
Sometimes it is. On the other hand, I like that NoScript can be updated before I start to browse. Sometimes there can be quite a delay in between sessions so I prefer that all the protections are active. For IETab, since it's only used for trusted sites, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. For Firefox itself it's yet another preference.
Chrome doesn't even open a modal dialog if it crashed last session. It just pops up a notification at the top of the screen asking if you want to restore your tabs...
That seems to be a sensible option.
Let me rephrase then.
What is the better default behavior given that there is an option to alter said behavior if you don't like it?
The default behavior attempts to keep Firefox as up to date as possible. It also tries to recover from the browser crashing or some other misfortune. If I need to go in a hurry, I can close the browser and it will reopen where I left off.
Your argument seems to be that people are imbeciles if they don't have the same priorities you do. I don't subscribe to that point of view.