Professionalism may be characterized as such, but a professional is also anyone who earns a living from their actions. Someone who changes oil for a living is indeed a professional. I would not, however, call them a mechanic.
Only people like those on slashdot assume or even know enough to assume that if the voting machines are bad that the ATMs *may* be bad. The financial institutions that have been using Diebold products already *know* how secure and reliable they are. Diebold does not need to prove anything in that market. Were I not a slashdot reader, I would not know that Diebold made ATMs. Even after reading this bit of trivia however long ago, I still have not actually noticed the manufacturer of any ATM I have used.
Why do so-called Palestinians have a right to a homeland? In all recorded history of the region, it is only the Jewish people that have had a self-governing state of any kind in that particular strip of land.
Umm, that's exactly what the FCC did. The only way to guarantee cheaper services would have been to establish strict regulations, or to form a government-owned corporation to provide them. Instead, the FCC allows multiple companies to use the spectrum and to compete on price in an open market.
The most basic tenet of Judiasm is that there is a single God. Judiasm places no other restrictions on non-Jews in terms of belief. You are free to believe in other supernatural powers or beings, so long as you do not believe they are a God of some kind. According to Judiasm, non-Jews are completely free to be a-religious, so long as they are theists. Personally, if one presupposes the existence of God, this would be the most reasonable one could ask for.
I think the idea of a God and the concept of religion are often confused and conflated. One need not follow a religion to believe in God, and there are religions that do not espouse a belief in any gods.
No knowledgable and religious Jew of the time would have accepted any other Jew as being literally divine (as opposed to figuratively, in the sense of all Jews being "children of God"). There is no evidence that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the literal son of God, and there's little reason to think he would have -- as no one would have believed him. Only to Christians, who have *already* accepted the idea, does it seem odd or simply wrong for someone to deny his divinity. Learn the Jewish religion someday, as practiced by Jews around the start of the common era. Even Jews who believe that the prophet Elijah ascended to Heaven while alive do not believe he is divine.
What you are missing is a person's ability to disregard reality when they feel it should not apply to them. A lot of people do things they know are wrong because they feel the consequences do not apply to them. In case you haven't been awake for the past 30+ years, the modern world is full of people who do not believe that the real world applies to them, despite ALL evidence to the contrary. Even a person who believed utterly that telling a lie would send a person to Hell would tell a lie because they would not believe that the rule is for *them*.
It's far, far more likely that you are an unmitigated idiot.
The ONLY reason to encrypt the cache is because it's on a removeable drive. As long as the key is kept in memory, it's secure. And whether MS implemented AES on their own or purchased a 3rd-party implementation, there is only your bigotry to suggest that it would be any more flawed than anyone else's.
"'The website does not exist' is being changed to 'we're not being up-front that there was a type, misdirected link, etc, we're going to show you adverts instead'."
Outside of privacy-related websites, there are none that promise privacy. At best, they will claim not to give/sell your information to others (read: spammers), but to expect anyone to promise to disobey the law to protect identity is ludicrous.
"The irony, of course, is that 'GPL violation' would be completely meaningless if that were true."
This is not the case. A GPL violation is a copyright violation. The genius of the GPL is that it uses both license and copyright law to force developers to give up their usual rights under copyright law. If license law is suddenly struck down, no one can use GPL code because they no longer have a right to do so, because of copyright law. If copyright law is struck down, one does not need the GPL to legally distribute the source code. The whole point of the GPL is that the GPL wins in either situation.
Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on slashdot?
If Google were to delist these Newspapers, that would not be an attack on the Newspapers. Google does not need a court ruling to delist anyone, so why should they go to the courts to do so? If Google feels they benefit from listing the 'papers, Google is free to appeal the court ruling. Otherwise, why should Google go through that expense?
People may make fun of the kid who takes his marbles and goes home, but only an idiot like you would claim he needs a Court's permission to do so.
Remember that when someone assembles a bomb and leaves it where your family is sure to trigger it. That person is just the manufacturer. They didn't do anything wrong.
Do you also absolve the hundreds of parents who leave firearms where kids can get them? After all, the parent didn't pull the trigger.
You are completely ignoring human behavior as demonstrated by thousands of years of history by claiming that merely saying something is not harmful. The FACT that people who hear the words are going to be affected is what makes such speech harmful.
"And I might hazard a guess that the primary reason why Torvalds is being to vocal in winging about both of the above has to do with the amount of work he'd need to do to change the license in the first place, given his lack of forethought in neither adopting the "or later version" clause, or any alternative that would make it easy to upgrade the license to one similar in spirit without the active support of every single person who has ever made a "contribution", no matter how small, to the Linux kernel."
Why do you think Linus is whining about GPLv3? All he's ever said is that he doesn't agree with limiting use of HIS software the way GPLv3 does, and he has made explicit that the kernel is under v2 only, and does not contain the "or later" clause. If you think having an opinion is the same as whining, you are a fairly sad individual.
Slashdot Mirror
The first "important" law passed would be a reversion to USA 1.0.
Professionalism may be characterized as such, but a professional is also anyone who earns a living from their actions. Someone who changes oil for a living is indeed a professional. I would not, however, call them a mechanic.
Being slashdotted has nothing to do with competence.
Only people like those on slashdot assume or even know enough to assume that if the voting machines are bad that the ATMs *may* be bad. The financial institutions that have been using Diebold products already *know* how secure and reliable they are. Diebold does not need to prove anything in that market. Were I not a slashdot reader, I would not know that Diebold made ATMs. Even after reading this bit of trivia however long ago, I still have not actually noticed the manufacturer of any ATM I have used.
You know, the Spiderman movies aren't advertised as works of fiction either.
"(for example, the Command and Conquer 3 demo is completely playable but crashes after several minutes)."
I think it's this definition of "completely playable" that keeps people away from Linux.
Why do so-called Palestinians have a right to a homeland? In all recorded history of the region, it is only the Jewish people that have had a self-governing state of any kind in that particular strip of land.
Umm, that's exactly what the FCC did. The only way to guarantee cheaper services would have been to establish strict regulations, or to form a government-owned corporation to provide them. Instead, the FCC allows multiple companies to use the spectrum and to compete on price in an open market.
The most basic tenet of Judiasm is that there is a single God. Judiasm places no other restrictions on non-Jews in terms of belief. You are free to believe in other supernatural powers or beings, so long as you do not believe they are a God of some kind. According to Judiasm, non-Jews are completely free to be a-religious, so long as they are theists. Personally, if one presupposes the existence of God, this would be the most reasonable one could ask for.
I think the idea of a God and the concept of religion are often confused and conflated. One need not follow a religion to believe in God, and there are religions that do not espouse a belief in any gods.
No knowledgable and religious Jew of the time would have accepted any other Jew as being literally divine (as opposed to figuratively, in the sense of all Jews being "children of God"). There is no evidence that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the literal son of God, and there's little reason to think he would have -- as no one would have believed him. Only to Christians, who have *already* accepted the idea, does it seem odd or simply wrong for someone to deny his divinity. Learn the Jewish religion someday, as practiced by Jews around the start of the common era. Even Jews who believe that the prophet Elijah ascended to Heaven while alive do not believe he is divine.
What you are missing is a person's ability to disregard reality when they feel it should not apply to them. A lot of people do things they know are wrong because they feel the consequences do not apply to them. In case you haven't been awake for the past 30+ years, the modern world is full of people who do not believe that the real world applies to them, despite ALL evidence to the contrary. Even a person who believed utterly that telling a lie would send a person to Hell would tell a lie because they would not believe that the rule is for *them*.
I have never seen anything to suggest that athiests are inherently moral. In fact, there is little reason to believe such to be the case.
He did check hardware compability. Using the Microsoft-provided tool to do so.
So stop lying just so you can insult people. Perhaps slashdot needs a "-10 Blatent Liar" mod option.
It was fairly common for NT4 on marginal hardware. Ever since Win2000, it's been fairly rare, with the usual exception of very bad hardware drivers.
It's far, far more likely that you are an unmitigated idiot.
The ONLY reason to encrypt the cache is because it's on a removeable drive. As long as the key is kept in memory, it's secure. And whether MS implemented AES on their own or purchased a 3rd-party implementation, there is only your bigotry to suggest that it would be any more flawed than anyone else's.
Direct3D has always been a subset of DirectX. One is not synonomous with the other.
DirectX = Direct3D + DirectDraw + DirectPlay + DirectInput, more or less.
The DMCA does not allow you to bypass DRM for *legal* copies either.
"'The website does not exist' is being changed to 'we're not being up-front that there was a type, misdirected link, etc, we're going to show you adverts instead'."
A typo of "typo". Oh, the irony.
Outside of privacy-related websites, there are none that promise privacy. At best, they will claim not to give/sell your information to others (read: spammers), but to expect anyone to promise to disobey the law to protect identity is ludicrous.
"The irony, of course, is that 'GPL violation' would be completely meaningless if that were true."
This is not the case. A GPL violation is a copyright violation. The genius of the GPL is that it uses both license and copyright law to force developers to give up their usual rights under copyright law. If license law is suddenly struck down, no one can use GPL code because they no longer have a right to do so, because of copyright law. If copyright law is struck down, one does not need the GPL to legally distribute the source code. The whole point of the GPL is that the GPL wins in either situation.
Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on slashdot?
If Google were to delist these Newspapers, that would not be an attack on the Newspapers. Google does not need a court ruling to delist anyone, so why should they go to the courts to do so? If Google feels they benefit from listing the 'papers, Google is free to appeal the court ruling. Otherwise, why should Google go through that expense?
People may make fun of the kid who takes his marbles and goes home, but only an idiot like you would claim he needs a Court's permission to do so.
What would be an unauthorized IP for a laptop?
Posting on slashdot means never having to be embarrassed for not RingTFA.
Remember that when someone assembles a bomb and leaves it where your family is sure to trigger it. That person is just the manufacturer. They didn't do anything wrong.
Do you also absolve the hundreds of parents who leave firearms where kids can get them? After all, the parent didn't pull the trigger.
You are completely ignoring human behavior as demonstrated by thousands of years of history by claiming that merely saying something is not harmful. The FACT that people who hear the words are going to be affected is what makes such speech harmful.
"And I might hazard a guess that the primary reason why Torvalds is being to vocal in winging about both of the above has to do with the amount of work he'd need to do to change the license in the first place, given his lack of forethought in neither adopting the "or later version" clause, or any alternative that would make it easy to upgrade the license to one similar in spirit without the active support of every single person who has ever made a "contribution", no matter how small, to the Linux kernel."
Why do you think Linus is whining about GPLv3? All he's ever said is that he doesn't agree with limiting use of HIS software the way GPLv3 does, and he has made explicit that the kernel is under v2 only, and does not contain the "or later" clause. If you think having an opinion is the same as whining, you are a fairly sad individual.