They should have another rating somewhere thats shows the ratio of positive/negative feedback LEFT by a user. That way those viewing can safely discount feedback left by those who compulsively leaves negatives.
My problem with this is, regardless of NSI's intentions in registering the domain in the first place, when they release the domain after four days it is going to get snagged by another domain taster. Companies such as Snapnames.com operate by analysing which domains are being deleted from the whois.
The act of dropping a domain alone is enough to ensure that you won't get near it.
While the existence of a higher power called God may be as laughable as "Giant pink whistling bears" to you, a lot of people would take several thousand years of writing, personal testimony and philosophy as having a bit more credence than something you just made up on the spot. Whether or not each religion is true, partly true or not at all true at least there's some historical context for the discussion.
It's too bad he caved, but he did what he had to do. There's no way he could do this alone and his family didn't have the backbone to stand with him. I'm sure they have what they consider very good reasons and were very inconvenienced by the whole ordeal.
Shame on them anyway for forcing him to make that kind of decision and roll over when he was clearly in the right. Even if they didn't agree with his principled stand they should at least have had the courage to support him in what was important enough for him to be arrested over.
Not to mention the current SCO Group is only tangentially related to the real SCO, who sold the rights of their Unix to Caldera when they changed their name to Tarantella, Inc. So even when they were operating it was Caldera.
Right, but my point was only that all these things you say are good, and could be done with out the god part of the equation. In practice however, this doesn't happen. Morality isn't widely accepted for its own intrinsic value. Most of society has progressed past murder and theft (at least on a large scale) through the use of social coercion AKA laws, but it is still generally accepted if we, for example, cheat on loved ones. As a hypothetical, if a scientific case where made for how pornography harms society as a whole it would be mostly viewed as quaint and ignored in favor of a more immediate personal gratification. Only religion (and its sister, philosophy) has a good track record of keeping people voluntarily "moral".
It's not necessarily libertarian to believe in locking up information in perpetual copyright. Quite the opposite. I think a truly "Free Market" would not emphasize "intellectual property" to the same degree.
And maintaining a loving relationship with Him causes a change of heart which manifests itself in altruistic actions. Those actions themselves do not make you suddenly worthy regardless of your fallen state, it's just that those who do not perform these acts can not be said to have accepted the Light of Christ. This all goes back to the basic question of Faith vs. Works and whether one without the other is dead.
I can tell you this company is going downhill. I have been with them for the last three years and had to cancel them this month due to, in my case, steadily declining customer support. Most of the original management left and formed Softlayer. What was left merged with another large hosting provider, EV1, and has become one of the worst service companies I've ever had the privilege of being screwed by.
For those saying the AC's situation could be made up, it was mentioned on webhostingtalk.com weeks ago before it was posted here so I'm pretty sure it happened.
"Unstable" implies a state of being. That makes it not nothing anymore. There is regression here. Add enough science and anything sounds reasonable, even everything coming from the absence of anything.
And science doesn't hit an "infinite regress"? What caused the Big Bang? And what was the cause of that? And what caused that before it? Ad Nauseum... Science's dirty little secret is that they have no idea where anything came from. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
There is no caffeine thing. We are suggested to not drink caffeine as it has been found to be the main active ingredient to coffee and tea which is mentioned in the Word of Wisdom, as I said. I'm not doubting that Coke MAY have donated money to the church, and many other organisations, but it obviously had no effect on any church doctrine. Feel free to offer anything that can actually be substantiated by more than 3rd party hearsay.
Your line of reasoning is flawed since you cannot prove their faith is not rational. The smartest people on the face of this planet have not been able to prove or disprove the existance of a god. It's been the subject of much speculation even in scientific circles.
You choose to believe certain things because they make sense to you but you have to rely on your senses, which as descartes has pointed out, cannot be trusted. Most Mormons I know are very informed people, many of them in technical fields.
That's preposterous. Divine or not, Doctrine and Covenants hasn't changed since it was written in the mid 1800's. Your post is absurd to the point of being laughable. I've been Mormon for 24 years and never had to change any Book of Mormons in for a "new copy". So please qualify your statements with fact.
In regards to the church being businesslike, sure, they even own stores that their teaching materials are disseminated through. And that money is put back into finding more converts. The whole thing is very efficient. I don't see the connection that makes them bad citizens in a free society however.
The very fact that we have a free society is the reason they can do what they do. They are exercising their freedoms. Would you rather we went back to not having the freedom of religion?
Taking caffeine is not a sin. It's found in the Word of Wisdom, which makes a reference to "hot drinks" i.e. tea and coffee. They are guidelines to live by to have a rich a rewarding life. Smoking and eating large quantities of meat are also mentioned. Without going into details the garments involve respecting the sactity of the body. If you don't believe in it then don't wear them.
You're throwing around other peoples beliefs without the context to make them sound silly and extreme and it really only shows your own close-mindedness and prejudice.
How is it any more nutty than any other belief of faith? You have the audacity to put down another's faith and then talk about your own 'fervently held belief'?
This isn't a matter of religion it's a matter of special interests.
So is this RCU code that is "based on original DYNIX/ptx code" and released by IBM under GPL the fabled "hundreds of lines of code" that SCO has been saying that was stolen from them and inserted into the kernel? Interesting plan, to track down legally released patches submitted by IBM and then use them to call linux hackers copyright infringers.
I expect other "copied code" to have gotten there in similar ways, some probably submitted by their former selves, Caldera.
This "do it yourself" open source mindset is just completely wrong. The point is we all need to cooperate, that's what interoperability is all about.
The real problem in most projects is that if the maintainer has already decided he doesn't want it to interoperate and my huge interoperability patch temporarily interferes with the arguably less important features that he as maintainer wants to incorporate, then I and the rest of the interoperability people are just screwed.
I think you're over simplifying. Conceptually knowledge 'exists'. So regardless of whom you do or don't tell, someone might just discover it anyway.
So then the idea of controlling ideas/knowledge/information turns out to be an illusion based on the act of supressing those unfortunate enough to know them.
A good example of this could be Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, in which books are a controlled substance, but the people have memorized them anyway. Some control that.
"Information wants to be free" is just an catchy tag line. Its not supposed to suggest that information has a mind and itself talks. Only that information/knowledge exibits an inherent trend towards not being controled.
Did you forget that AOL/Time Warner own's a huge chunk of the cable lines? They still get your money.
Re:It's a GPL violation, and more
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
This is not possible. Once the author releases source code under the GPL, everyone automatically gets a license to use that code (unless they violated the GPL).
The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed... to all third parties." Who are these third parties? Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
They did the right thing and settled out of court, RELEASING TECHNICAL DATA about their microprocessor designs, whithout which there could never have been this level of competition.
This is an example of where a monopoly was broken, not an example of a free-market correcting itself. (There isn't a free-market today so it can't possibly correct itself.)
Re:Freedom vs. Power - Not their decision to make
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
You cannot rightfully claim it is a freedom to restrict someone's use of a product that they own.
Slashdot Mirror
They should have another rating somewhere thats shows the ratio of positive/negative feedback LEFT by a user. That way those viewing can safely discount feedback left by those who compulsively leaves negatives.
My problem with this is, regardless of NSI's intentions in registering the domain in the first place, when they release the domain after four days it is going to get snagged by another domain taster. Companies such as Snapnames.com operate by analysing which domains are being deleted from the whois.
The act of dropping a domain alone is enough to ensure that you won't get near it.
While the existence of a higher power called God may be as laughable as "Giant pink whistling bears" to you, a lot of people would take several thousand years of writing, personal testimony and philosophy as having a bit more credence than something you just made up on the spot. Whether or not each religion is true, partly true or not at all true at least there's some historical context for the discussion.
It's too bad he caved, but he did what he had to do. There's no way he could do this alone and his family didn't have the backbone to stand with him. I'm sure they have what they consider very good reasons and were very inconvenienced by the whole ordeal.
Shame on them anyway for forcing him to make that kind of decision and roll over when he was clearly in the right. Even if they didn't agree with his principled stand they should at least have had the courage to support him in what was important enough for him to be arrested over.
Not to mention the current SCO Group is only tangentially related to the real SCO, who sold the rights of their Unix to Caldera when they changed their name to Tarantella, Inc. So even when they were operating it was Caldera.
It's not necessarily libertarian to believe in locking up information in perpetual copyright. Quite the opposite. I think a truly "Free Market" would not emphasize "intellectual property" to the same degree.
And maintaining a loving relationship with Him causes a change of heart which manifests itself in altruistic actions. Those actions themselves do not make you suddenly worthy regardless of your fallen state, it's just that those who do not perform these acts can not be said to have accepted the Light of Christ. This all goes back to the basic question of Faith vs. Works and whether one without the other is dead.
I can tell you this company is going downhill. I have been with them for the last three years and had to cancel them this month due to, in my case, steadily declining customer support. Most of the original management left and formed Softlayer. What was left merged with another large hosting provider, EV1, and has become one of the worst service companies I've ever had the privilege of being screwed by.
For those saying the AC's situation could be made up, it was mentioned on webhostingtalk.com weeks ago before it was posted here so I'm pretty sure it happened.
"Unstable" implies a state of being. That makes it not nothing anymore. There is regression here. Add enough science and anything sounds reasonable, even everything coming from the absence of anything.
And science doesn't hit an "infinite regress"? What caused the Big Bang? And what was the cause of that? And what caused that before it? Ad Nauseum... Science's dirty little secret is that they have no idea where anything came from. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
There is no caffeine thing. We are suggested to not drink caffeine as it has been found to be the main active ingredient to coffee and tea which is mentioned in the Word of Wisdom, as I said. I'm not doubting that Coke MAY have donated money to the church, and many other organisations, but it obviously had no effect on any church doctrine. Feel free to offer anything that can actually be substantiated by more than 3rd party hearsay.
Your line of reasoning is flawed since you cannot prove their faith is not rational. The smartest people on the face of this planet have not been able to prove or disprove the existance of a god. It's been the subject of much speculation even in scientific circles.
You choose to believe certain things because they make sense to you but you have to rely on your senses, which as descartes has pointed out, cannot be trusted. Most Mormons I know are very informed people, many of them in technical fields.
That's preposterous. Divine or not, Doctrine and Covenants hasn't changed since it was written in the mid 1800's. Your post is absurd to the point of being laughable. I've been Mormon for 24 years and never had to change any Book of Mormons in for a "new copy". So please qualify your statements with fact.
In regards to the church being businesslike, sure, they even own stores that their teaching materials are disseminated through. And that money is put back into finding more converts. The whole thing is very efficient. I don't see the connection that makes them bad citizens in a free society however.
The very fact that we have a free society is the reason they can do what they do. They are exercising their freedoms. Would you rather we went back to not having the freedom of religion?
Taking caffeine is not a sin. It's found in the Word of Wisdom, which makes a reference to "hot drinks" i.e. tea and coffee. They are guidelines to live by to have a rich a rewarding life. Smoking and eating large quantities of meat are also mentioned. Without going into details the garments involve respecting the sactity of the body. If you don't believe in it then don't wear them.
You're throwing around other peoples beliefs without the context to make them sound silly and extreme and it really only shows your own close-mindedness and prejudice.
How is it any more nutty than any other belief of faith? You have the audacity to put down another's faith and then talk about your own 'fervently held belief'?
This isn't a matter of religion it's a matter of special interests.
- An inactive Mormon
So is this RCU code that is "based on original DYNIX/ptx code" and released by IBM under GPL the fabled "hundreds of lines of code" that SCO has been saying that was stolen from them and inserted into the kernel? Interesting plan, to track down legally released patches submitted by IBM and then use them to call linux hackers copyright infringers.
I expect other "copied code" to have gotten there in similar ways, some probably submitted by their former selves, Caldera.
This "do it yourself" open source mindset is just completely wrong. The point is we all need to cooperate, that's what interoperability is all about.
The real problem in most projects is that if the maintainer has already decided he doesn't want it to interoperate and my huge interoperability patch temporarily interferes with the arguably less important features that he as maintainer wants to incorporate, then I and the rest of the interoperability people are just screwed.
I'm speaking from experience.
I think you're over simplifying. Conceptually knowledge 'exists'. So regardless of whom you do or don't tell, someone might just discover it anyway.
So then the idea of controlling ideas/knowledge/information turns out to be an illusion based on the act of supressing those unfortunate enough to know them.
A good example of this could be Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, in which books are a controlled substance, but the people have memorized them anyway. Some control that.
"Information wants to be free" is just an catchy tag line. Its not supposed to suggest that information has a mind and itself talks. Only that information/knowledge exibits an inherent trend towards not being controled.
Ostensibly 2.10 is the same as 2.1 which they passed long ago.
Now if the current stable kernel was 2.04...
Did you forget that AOL/Time Warner own's a huge chunk of the cable lines? They still get your money.
This is not possible. Once the author releases source code under the GPL, everyone automatically gets a license to use that code (unless they violated the GPL).
... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?
From the GPL FAQ:
The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
WINE isn't GPL'd. It's BSD'd. The LindowsOS WINE code is propriatary so they can charge whatever they want for it.
They did the right thing and settled out of court, RELEASING TECHNICAL DATA about their microprocessor designs, whithout which there could never have been this level of competition.
This is an example of where a monopoly was broken, not an example of a free-market correcting itself. (There isn't a free-market today so it can't possibly correct itself.)
You cannot rightfully claim it is a freedom to restrict someone's use of a product that they own.