There used to be uncensored images at cryptome.org up until at least april 2005, but even those are gone now. Interestingly, on the main cryptome page it says: Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those. Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order served will be published here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order. I guess they got their court order, along with a gag order, and enough intimidation that they didn't even post it elsewhere.
No. The *best* intelligence there was said that there was no indication that Saddam had retained WMD, and that he was no threat to the US or others. The 'intelligence' that the Bush administration chose to go with said that Saddam had WMD, nuclear capabilities and a working relationship with Al Qaeda.
I wasn't talking about the 1st Iraq war, but about the current one. Do you believe that Saddam had WMD in 2003, and if so, how do you explain that none were found, even though Rumsfeld himself said, and I quote, "we know where they are"? Well?
In order to "survive the supreme court", the patriot act would have to be challenged in court first, no? And since the bush administration has a habit of making certain laws and regulations secret, it could be very hard for anyone to challenge the expanded patriot act in court. You can't challenge something when you don't even know what it is.
While the particular lawsuit against S&W used the negligence-approach, this really has got nothing to do with negligence. This guy is being sued because his app is used for piracy, which is illegal. In fact, they made a law so that developing tools for piracy is illegal. Now, guns are used to murder people every day. Murdering people is illegal. Why are gun manufactures not being sued for manufacturing tools that are used to do these illegal things? Why is there no law against the manufacture of guns? (answer, because Hollywood and gun manufacturers both have a powerful lobbying presence)
Even if they had supplied object files for the proprietary bits (which would be the accepted thing to do had this been LGPL and not GPL), or provided some other way for you to build the complete software, there still remains the "small" issue of how to get the software onto the device. There is nothing in the GPL that specifies that the manufacturers of devices that use GPL software need to make it possible for you to actually get your replacement software onto the device.
So, according to that article, 80% of Americans have access to broadband, if they want it
Two comments about that:
what is considered "broadband" in the US is considered laughably slow and outdated in places like Japan (you can get 22 megabits/sec for about $22 a month in Japan)
in the US, "access to broadband" means "there is at least one location in this zipcode that can have broadband", hardly a fair and accurate measure.
Something had to create the universe. It hasn't always been there and it didn't spontaneously appear out of nothing
That's an assumption. As I said: if "God" or some other "force" can have existed always, then there is no reason that the universe cannot have existed always.
You are assuming that the universe cannot always have been there, but that there is some other thing that can have always been there. Why?
I wasn't precise enough in my wording it seems.
You are saying that something created the universe but we don't know what.
I'm saying we don't even know if something created the universe.
Your statement is an assumption.
My statement is fact.
And that's where you're wrong. If "God" is not necessarily the God of the Bible, but can be "some force more powerful than our universe", and that "force" or whatever it is can have existed always, then there is no real reason why our universe (or the "larger universe" from which it sprang) cannot have existed always, thus eliminating the need for such a force, God, or any other supernatural explanation. Claiming that God "must" have created the universe, but then not investigating what caused God because that is beyond comprehension is no different than simply saying that we cannot possible know what created the universe in the first place. So why even bother with God? Just say we don't know what created the universe and call it a day. No God required. Adding God doesn't explain anything, and over the course of human history has only caused much pain and suffering.
I believe that there is a God because there has to be. The Big Bang (or whatever started this universe) didn't just happen out of nothing.
God didn't just happen out of nothing, did he? Where did he come from? Who or what created God?
Now, I'm pretty sure that you will come up with some variation of "God has always existed, and therefore was not created", so let me postulate this: there has always existed a 'larger universe' (I have no better name for it) and at some point there was a 'hickup' in this larger universe in the form of the big bang that created the universe that we can observe today.
Now, you will no doubt ask what caused this hickup. Surely God set all that in motion, no? Well let me ask you this then: what caused God to set this in motion? Even if God has always existed, at some point, something caused God to decide to create our universe. Must we therefore conclude that there exists some kind of uber-God?
Seriously - you want me to believe that the simplest explanation is that sex, butterflies, and Picasso "just happened"????
The jury is still out on whether or not this universe will end with a "big crunch". If it does, it will be followed by another universe. In fact, this universe can be just one of an infinite series of universes, one after the other. Given that, no matter how improbably it is for "sex, butterflies and Picasso" to just happen, it eventually will. And when it does, we're around to witness it. Like now.
Teach the kids the conflicting theories, let them use thier own intellect to sort it out
How about we just teach children that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Budhists, Hindus, Aboriginals, atheists, etcetera all disagree about which god, if any, there is, and what, if anything, he has commanded us to do, and then let those kids make up their own mind?
If you presuppose an infinitely powerful being, evolution seems like so much wasted effort.
An infinitely powerful being could have created everything at once in no time at all and be done with it. An infinitely powerful being would not have needed to rest after that. Yet that being supposedly did.
We can therefore conclude that that either there are limits to this being's powers, or that this being had some other reason for doing things that way.
In other words: an infinitely powerful being might use evolution for the same reason that that being took 6 whole days to finish its creation: because it felt like it.
Let's be honest: $3 for a gigabyte of music is a pretty sweet deal compared to the 99 cents per song the iTunes store charges. So pay your $750 for a top of the line iPod, and then pirate music to your heart's content. After all, you've already paid the music industry.
Companies don't want to hire people who write things like "People higher H1B's because there cheeper". They want qualified employees. If that means that the unqualified people remain unemployed, so be it. Companies shouldn't be forced to hire incompetent people.
Every single time the issue of immigration and guest workers comes up on slashdot, there is an excellent example, like yours, of why companies want, even NEED, H1B employees:
People higher H1B's because there cheeper
No, they do it because *any* H1B immigrant would be able to write that correctly:
People hire H1B's because they're cheaper
And *that's* why they prefer to hire foreigners rather than people like you. With writing like that, I'm surprised you even got a job (I'll assume you weren't lying about that)
Slashdot Mirror
There used to be uncensored images at cryptome.org up until at least april 2005, but even those are gone now. Interestingly, on the main cryptome page it says:
Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those.
Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order served will be published here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order.
I guess they got their court order, along with a gag order, and enough intimidation that they didn't even post it elsewhere.
Nationalist and racist insults aside, you forgot the US.
Oh, and you're not losing the war because of "leftist groupthink", but because of incompetent leadership.
There is nothing in the theory of relativity that prohibits speeds greater than the speed of light.
No. The *best* intelligence there was said that there was no indication that Saddam had retained WMD, and that he was no threat to the US or others. The 'intelligence' that the Bush administration chose to go with said that Saddam had WMD, nuclear capabilities and a working relationship with Al Qaeda.
Uhm... no it didn't.
You can't, but they still expect you to.
I wasn't talking about the 1st Iraq war, but about the current one. Do you believe that Saddam had WMD in 2003, and if so, how do you explain that none were found, even though Rumsfeld himself said, and I quote, "we know where they are"?
Well?
Riiight... And Saddam had stockpiles of WMD and was best buddies with Osama bin Laden, right?
In order to "survive the supreme court", the patriot act would have to be challenged in court first, no? And since the bush administration has a habit of making certain laws and regulations secret, it could be very hard for anyone to challenge the expanded patriot act in court. You can't challenge something when you don't even know what it is.
Bush is not a patriot. He is killing everything that America once stood for.
While the particular lawsuit against S&W used the negligence-approach, this really has got nothing to do with negligence. This guy is being sued because his app is used for piracy, which is illegal. In fact, they made a law so that developing tools for piracy is illegal.
Now, guns are used to murder people every day. Murdering people is illegal. Why are gun manufactures not being sued for manufacturing tools that are used to do these illegal things? Why is there no law against the manufacture of guns?
(answer, because Hollywood and gun manufacturers both have a powerful lobbying presence)
Even if they had supplied object files for the proprietary bits (which would be the accepted thing to do had this been LGPL and not GPL), or provided some other way for you to build the complete software, there still remains the "small" issue of how to get the software onto the device. There is nothing in the GPL that specifies that the manufacturers of devices that use GPL software need to make it possible for you to actually get your replacement software onto the device.
Two comments about that:
That's an assumption. As I said: if "God" or some other "force" can have existed always, then there is no reason that the universe cannot have existed always.
You are assuming that the universe cannot always have been there, but that there is some other thing that can have always been there. Why?
I wasn't precise enough in my wording it seems.
You are saying that something created the universe but we don't know what.
I'm saying we don't even know if something created the universe.
Your statement is an assumption.
My statement is fact.
And that's where you're wrong. If "God" is not necessarily the God of the Bible, but can be "some force more powerful than our universe", and that "force" or whatever it is can have existed always, then there is no real reason why our universe (or the "larger universe" from which it sprang) cannot have existed always, thus eliminating the need for such a force, God, or any other supernatural explanation. Claiming that God "must" have created the universe, but then not investigating what caused God because that is beyond comprehension is no different than simply saying that we cannot possible know what created the universe in the first place. So why even bother with God? Just say we don't know what created the universe and call it a day. No God required. Adding God doesn't explain anything, and over the course of human history has only caused much pain and suffering.
No you can't. I'm absolutely sure of that.
God didn't just happen out of nothing, did he? Where did he come from? Who or what created God?
Now, I'm pretty sure that you will come up with some variation of "God has always existed, and therefore was not created", so let me postulate this: there has always existed a 'larger universe' (I have no better name for it) and at some point there was a 'hickup' in this larger universe in the form of the big bang that created the universe that we can observe today.
Now, you will no doubt ask what caused this hickup. Surely God set all that in motion, no? Well let me ask you this then: what caused God to set this in motion? Even if God has always existed, at some point, something caused God to decide to create our universe. Must we therefore conclude that there exists some kind of uber-God?
Not so fast there... An atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. What you're describing is more like an agnostic, which is one who believes that we cannot know if there is a deity.
The jury is still out on whether or not this universe will end with a "big crunch". If it does, it will be followed by another universe. In fact, this universe can be just one of an infinite series of universes, one after the other. Given that, no matter how improbably it is for "sex, butterflies and Picasso" to just happen, it eventually will. And when it does, we're around to witness it. Like now.
How about we just teach children that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Budhists, Hindus, Aboriginals, atheists, etcetera all disagree about which god, if any, there is, and what, if anything, he has commanded us to do, and then let those kids make up their own mind?
An infinitely powerful being could have created everything at once in no time at all and be done with it. An infinitely powerful being would not have needed to rest after that. Yet that being supposedly did. We can therefore conclude that that either there are limits to this being's powers, or that this being had some other reason for doing things that way.
In other words: an infinitely powerful being might use evolution for the same reason that that being took 6 whole days to finish its creation: because it felt like it.
Let's be honest: $3 for a gigabyte of music is a pretty sweet deal compared to the 99 cents per song the iTunes store charges.
So pay your $750 for a top of the line iPod, and then pirate music to your heart's content. After all, you've already paid the music industry.
Companies don't want to hire people who write things like "People higher H1B's because there cheeper". They want qualified employees. If that means that the unqualified people remain unemployed, so be it. Companies shouldn't be forced to hire incompetent people.
People higher H1B's because there cheeper
No, they do it because *any* H1B immigrant would be able to write that correctly:
People hire H1B's because they're cheaper
And *that's* why they prefer to hire foreigners rather than people like you. With writing like that, I'm surprised you even got a job (I'll assume you weren't lying about that)