Please can someone explain to me, why that when the 1st Star Wars Prequel was widely regarded as a crime against celluloid, and the 2nd Prequel proved, if anything, to be even worse that the 1st, that anyone at all went to see the 3rd Prequel. I sympathize, but I think you're letting your hatred of the Star Wars prequels cloud your judgment. Surely you're jumping the gun to conclude that all prequels to classic movies will inevitably be new Jar Jar Binks movies*.
*Those words at the end of that sentence came dangerously close to being "Jar Jar Binks, the Movie", something that sends a chill down my spine.
Hollywood has become too predictable. The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense". If that's true, why do you say it's "become" too predictable? According to you, Hollywood reached it's peak of unpredictability in 1999, which is relatively recent.
I looked up dictionary definitions and was surprised to not find my definition anywhere in them. Anyway, I believe that I understand the more original definition of the word. If not, throw a shrubbery at me.
A cult is an organization that is centered around the worship of one individual. In polytheistic times, this meant a group that worshiped one god. Monotheistic religions could therefore be defined as "cults" but the term really loses its meaning by doing this.
Modern cults then, if the term is used ""correctly"" [double double quotes used for emphasis] are groups that are centered around the worship of the teachings of their leader. The FLDS church, for instance, could reasonably be called a cult because its really all about fallowing the correct interpretation of the gospel as clarified by Warren Jeffs.
I could go on. But what is Scientology, then? Is it the cult of L. Ron Hubbard? If you call yourself a Christian who believes that Christ was not God but a prophet (there have been some who believed this), are you suddenly a cultist? I'll end with those questions.
Not sure why you're complaining. Heck, Slashdot would provide a community service to announce this as an official offer. "Open-source your hardware driver, get a free glowing review press release as a Slashdot story."
he only bad censorship is government censorship. Any other form is perfectly legal. I'm surprised this needs pointing out, but you're apparently using the logic that if something isn't illegal, it's not bad. All we have to do is pass a law and this move by Microsoft will outrage you?
Like the binary drivers thing or countless other trifling irrelevancies before it, this is a classic example of why open source has as many detractors as it does supporters Ã" the polarising ideology of its most ardent supporters. To these types, if you are not with them, you are against them, an open source hater and betrayer of the cause. I don't disagree with you exactly. But philosophical arguments are relevant to what is to many a philosophy. And if we can't do that on Slashdot, where can we?
The problem is that neither side comes expecting a civil debate - and mostly expect the posts to mostly be about how we shouldn't be making these arguments, devolving into a kind of general factional flamefest.
Open Source isn't some hippy anti-capitalist religion. Its a way of doing business. If you alienate or disqualify companies who want to make a profit from being "true open source" then I and many like me will have to go back to releasing proprietary software only. If I wanted to restrict certain people from using free software - and I don't - it would be people like you. People who just want programmers to do the work for them for "free". I would never, never give a fuck about free/open source software if it was just a "way of doing business".
Personally I am blown away by the incompetence of the defense attorney. Clearly he must have understood Reiser (guilty or not) would not help his case by testifying. He should never have been put on the stand. You should have bothered to read the article (+5 Funny!):
DuBois made little effort to hide his frustration with his client. The biggest bone of contention was Reiser's insistence on taking the stand himself - a move that may have been Reiser's undoing.
Their "big name" is so tarnished that it would be more harm than boon if they were to hop on the bandwagon. I think you're seeing this the wrong way. It's precisely because of their history that this decision will make an impact.
Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.
They killed thousands of civillians in a war. Here's what Amnesty International said
Forgive me for my flippant dismissal, but they sure do say "reportedly" alot. Knowing Amnesty International, they probably rely exclusively on the "independent", respected media - probably from India. The Maoist's massive support seems to indicate otherwise. For that matter, how do you think they were so successful? It's not like they were being armed by China or something.
Now the government has basically surrendered
You demonstrate here that you have no idea what's going on in Nepal. The "government" you speak of was overthrown by a massive uprising made in alliance with the political parties in the cities and the Maoists in the countryside for the first time.
and called elections where the Maoists have had free range to intimidate, something they have a long experience in. Here's what the UN said.
KATHMANDU, June 23 (Reuters) - Activists from the youth wing of Nepal's former Maoist rebels are creating a "climate of fear" by abducting and beating people, the United Nations said on Saturday.
The UN body said on Friday that Maoists, who ended a decade-long insurgency in November, were among those preventing other parties from functioning freely in rural areas ahead of an assembly election at the end of this year.
I can't respond to these claims directly, but the article is from over a year ago, whereas...
On the BBC they interviewed people who said that they were voting for them to stop them killing people!
That's some journalism, there, doing whatever you can to find and report on people upset with the chance to vote.
Seems like terrorism has got them into government
See above. This is just getting comical.
where they plan to abolish the monarchy and set up a 'strong Presidential system'
I'm terrified.
presumably with their leader Prachanda - Nepali for The Fierce One
"Presumably" with whoever *gets elected*. What's so hard to understand here?
and an admirer of Stalin and Mao
Mao's support of the name of Stalinism is a complicated thing. Many of Mao's greatest admirers in the West were Trotskyists - go figure.
Of course there's no guarantee that Nepal will stay democratic after the election. The Maoists might arrange some Reichstag fire type situation and use it as an excuse to impose a state of emergency, ban other parties and convert their strong president into a dictator.
Especially now that you've given them the idea!!
Before the election they've said that they believe in the multi party system, but maybe they're lying.
Maybe the Nepal Samajwadi Janata Dal party is, too. What's your point?
But only US politicans are dishonest, right?
I'm waiting for your argument in support of the theory that the Maoists are lying. I'm guessing it amounts to "because they're Maoists!"
Every single politician that the US doesn't like in the entire world is totally uncorrupt and only interested in working for the betterment of their countries, not in gaining godlike personal power
Are you trying to say that every single politician the US doesn't like is trying to gain godlike personal power??
Anyway, putting a check wherever the US puts a minus is indeed a sophomoric mistake. The more nuanced reality is that the US only demoni
Oh, and you're right.
The original post's line "No ambiguity in the term" reference was to Islamist, not terrorism. My mistake, but my point remains valid out of context.
(And remember not to use intent! Governments do not have feelings, and the slain do not care about the motivations of their killers) Actually, I think you're further confusing the meaning of the term here. Terrorism is defined by its intent. If you nuke a large city to destroy military targets, it may be unjust but it's not terrorism. However, if you nuke a large city to terrify your enemy into surrendering, that's terrorism.
The fact that terrorists attack military and police units doesn't mean they aren't terrorists. I think it's imperative that you recognize that you're unfairly grouping a massive, decentralized resistance movement (and, in fact, few if any of the attacks mentioned had anything to do with the "terrorists" supposedly fighting us). I have faith that you can do so.
Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.
Nothing could please the Russians more than to have lost the battle for the moon, but to have won the war for space. Theydid. Then we decided that space was a race won by whoever got to the Moon first.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to be pedantic, but that wouldn't fit this definition of "proactive" even by a stretch.
"If they get challenged prior art is obvious in this case and it shouldn't last 5 minutes if MS tried to extort them using it."
Fixed that for you.
*Those words at the end of that sentence came dangerously close to being "Jar Jar Binks, the Movie", something that sends a chill down my spine.
I looked up dictionary definitions and was surprised to not find my definition anywhere in them. Anyway, I believe that I understand the more original definition of the word. If not, throw a shrubbery at me.
A cult is an organization that is centered around the worship of one individual. In polytheistic times, this meant a group that worshiped one god. Monotheistic religions could therefore be defined as "cults" but the term really loses its meaning by doing this.
Modern cults then, if the term is used ""correctly"" [double double quotes used for emphasis] are groups that are centered around the worship of the teachings of their leader. The FLDS church, for instance, could reasonably be called a cult because its really all about fallowing the correct interpretation of the gospel as clarified by Warren Jeffs.
I could go on. But what is Scientology, then? Is it the cult of L. Ron Hubbard? If you call yourself a Christian who believes that Christ was not God but a prophet (there have been some who believed this), are you suddenly a cultist? I'll end with those questions.
Not sure why you're complaining. Heck, Slashdot would provide a community service to announce this as an official offer. "Open-source your hardware driver, get a free glowing review press release as a Slashdot story."
The problem is that neither side comes expecting a civil debate - and mostly expect the posts to mostly be about how we shouldn't be making these arguments, devolving into a kind of general factional flamefest.
Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.
They killed thousands of civillians in a war. Here's what Amnesty International said
Forgive me for my flippant dismissal, but they sure do say "reportedly" alot. Knowing Amnesty International, they probably rely exclusively on the "independent", respected media - probably from India. The Maoist's massive support seems to indicate otherwise. For that matter, how do you think they were so successful? It's not like they were being armed by China or something.
Now the government has basically surrendered
You demonstrate here that you have no idea what's going on in Nepal. The "government" you speak of was overthrown by a massive uprising made in alliance with the political parties in the cities and the Maoists in the countryside for the first time.
and called elections where the Maoists have had free range to intimidate, something they have a long experience in. Here's what the UN said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL140233
KATHMANDU, June 23 (Reuters) - Activists from the youth wing of Nepal's former Maoist rebels are creating a "climate of fear" by abducting and beating people, the United Nations said on Saturday.
The UN body said on Friday that Maoists, who ended a decade-long insurgency in November, were among those preventing other parties from functioning freely in rural areas ahead of an assembly election at the end of this year.
I can't respond to these claims directly, but the article is from over a year ago, whereas...
On the BBC they interviewed people who said that they were voting for them to stop them killing people!
That's some journalism, there, doing whatever you can to find and report on people upset with the chance to vote.
Seems like terrorism has got them into government
See above. This is just getting comical.
where they plan to abolish the monarchy and set up a 'strong Presidential system'
I'm terrified.
presumably with their leader Prachanda - Nepali for The Fierce One
"Presumably" with whoever *gets elected*. What's so hard to understand here?
and an admirer of Stalin and Mao
Mao's support of the name of Stalinism is a complicated thing. Many of Mao's greatest admirers in the West were Trotskyists - go figure.
Of course there's no guarantee that Nepal will stay democratic after the election. The Maoists might arrange some Reichstag fire type situation and use it as an excuse to impose a state of emergency, ban other parties and convert their strong president into a dictator.
Especially now that you've given them the idea!!
Before the election they've said that they believe in the multi party system, but maybe they're lying.
Maybe the Nepal Samajwadi Janata Dal party is, too. What's your point?
But only US politicans are dishonest, right?
I'm waiting for your argument in support of the theory that the Maoists are lying. I'm guessing it amounts to "because they're Maoists!"
Every single politician that the US doesn't like in the entire world is totally uncorrupt and only interested in working for the betterment of their countries, not in gaining godlike personal power
Are you trying to say that every single politician the US doesn't like is trying to gain godlike personal power??
Anyway, putting a check wherever the US puts a minus is indeed a sophomoric mistake. The more nuanced reality is that the US only demoni
Maybe Deus Ex 3 will actually be the movie's tie-in game.
Don't forget the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Not only was its being called terrorist slander to begin with, but it's now abandoned the civil war and a major player (in fact, the largest player) in the creation of a new secular, democratic republic. And it's still on the official US terrorist list.
"No ambiguity in the term"? When a roadside bomb attacking military vehicles is "terrorism", the word has lost all meaning.
What's an "entirely" and what's wrong with ISPs having one?
...and it would have been quite safe as well. After all, the cat had 18 half-lives I hate you. I (*snicker*) hate you. Hate. (*snicker*)Really? You didn't catch on with the "earrings are a given in my non-conformist world" bit?