when combined with the fact that the last time they changed IP's (according to Netcraft) was around the end of August, which was the last time they experienced a "DDoS".....
I saw on groklaw that someone found an IP that the SCO site was available on (216.250.128.20), which caused him/her to wonder if the morons just changed IP's for the site, and didn't update the DNS record in a timely manner. Seems a good possibility. I also notice on Netcraft that the last time they changed IP's was near the end of August, around the time of the last "DDOS" attack on SCO.. Seems like more then just a coincidence to me...
Shesh, has there been any OFFICIAL word from valve regarding the delay, or is all this just a rumor manifesting it way through the news sites as fact? I think I'll take all these rumorous reports with a grain of salt until something more firm is given by the source of the game.
P.S., How the hell does cnn friggin money have the scoop on whether or not there is a playable version of HL2 floating around!?! I think I'll take that with a truckload of salt...
I've no desire to debate the usefullness of Knuth's works, but if you read the comments on Amazon for the box set Knuth himself addresses the reason that he used MIX. He's the last comment on there, titled Knuth's words on why assembly language, February 1, 2002.
Reading through the majority of the highly moded posts, I was disturbed by the level of criticism the US is getting for this incident, and IT WAS THE ONE ATTACKED. This brings to mind an editorial written by the late Canadian Journalist, Gordon Sinclair...
[QUOTE]
The Americans
...and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.
They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.
The Marshall Plan.. the Truman Policy.. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.
I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.
Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them... unless they are breaking Canadian laws.. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.
When the Americans get out of this bind... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.
Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.
I hope Canada is not one of these.
[/QUOTE]
The interesting thing about this editorial is that it was written in 1973, and yet it still rings as true as it ever did. I personally am proud to have Canada as our neighbor, and am thankful for those who live there that feel our pain. People here have knocked them as cowards, but I know, and they know, that the real coward is the one who stikes anonymously from a distance.
Seriously though, have you ever really thought about what you're asking for when you say those things? Firstly, since the clone will be its own sentient being, it'll want rights. Think you can take their rights away after a few of your clones put the smack down on YOU and make you THEIR slave? Right, I'm sure you'll be able to command them around. I mean your mind and rights are superior to theirs, right? I guess we'll also just assume that they WANT us to take their organs whenever we need them.. Talk about opening a can of whoop! Also, what about the overpopulation of our already crowded planet? Sure, it's not bad enough already, lets have two or three clones each as well! That'll make things SO much better.
Why don't you wake up from your self-obsorption before you post this crap.
Let me start out by saying that I too am a Christian. I was brought up as a child going to church regularly. As a teenager I was emotionally and sexually abused by someone who should have known better, I became angry with God and became an athiest. I have looked into other types of beliefs, from mysticisms to evolution to agnosticism. None of them, to me, made sense, logically or emotionally, in their contexts. As a young adult I became a believer in Christ again. Mainly because I was shown the grace and unconditional acceptance, despite my shortcomings and sins, that should be displayed by all Christians, but usually is not. Christians are not meant to be perfect or judging of others, they are meant to be forgiven and forgiving of others. To me, Christianity is the only belief system that makes sense.
I agree with the sentiment that people get too extreme when it comes to this argument. Why do people who disagree on the issue of evolution v. creation, usually on logical terms, get so heated, illogical, and spiteful (dare I say emotionally logical) when attempting to refute it? People are entitled to respond in such a way, but I think by responding that way they do their arguments injustice. Responding with hatred only weakens your position, in my opinion. Can't we disagree without being disagreeable?
While I agree with that sentiment, I respectfully disagree with the notion that God is a logical being. Throughout the Bible, both OT and NT, God is defined as Love. Love is not logic, it is an emotion. To me, Love and logic are oxymoronic (i.e. like saying someone is a little giant).
I know the logical/philosophical argument of "If God is so loving, then why is there pain and suffering in the world?" from some discussions I've had with close friends.
Firstly, this implies that there is a God. In order to make this argument you must acknowledge that there is a God. You can believe in God or not, but since you are using this argument to disprove God, then we will assume that there is one. I personally think that it is much less of a leap of faith to believe in God then it is to believe in evolution, but that's my opinion and does not have to be yours.
Secondly, I do not believe that you can/should argue for God logically, since he is defined as an emotion. Besides, someone who argues against God logically has already made up his/her mind that they do not want to believe it. It would be better to argue about why they don't want to believe. What experiences have they had that have turned them off to it? The basis of Christianity is that of faith, belief without proof. It would be unwise to attempt to prove logically that God exists, from a Christian perspective anyway.
Thirdly, the assumption here is that pain is equivalent to evil. This I think is an incorrect assumption. For instance, say I am a father with a son. Say my son runs out into a busy street without looking to see if there are any cars coming, but luckily he does not get hit by one. As a father, I should/would scold my son (causing emotional pain/sufering) or give him a spanking (causing physical pain/suffering) to attempt to make him realize that he should not do that. Tell me, was my act of causing pain evil? No, instead it served to mold my son into looking out for himself and keeping safe. I did it because I love him, and do not want to lose him. It gives my son the knowledge/enlightenment needed to know that it was unwise to do such a thing. Granted, this is a crude argument, but it gets the point across. Love can use/cause pain to help mold those that are loved so that they will become more enlightened and kept safe.
Anyway, that is my two cents. You can hate me for my opinion if you like, but that doesn't mean that I have to hate you in return. On the contrary, I will still respect and accept what you have to say.
Cheers.
-- So you don't believe what I believe, and I don't believe what you believe. Oh well, how about we go get a beer.
I would definitely leave it to a MS owned news source to come up with one of the lamest stories I've ever read. All the author of the story does is rant his own personal views without going into any of the concrete evidence. He even gets the fact that Darwin didn't come up with, and according to some didn't endorse, the idea of evolution. Darwin's Origin of Species deals mainly with the idea of Natural Selection. From his work, other scientists came up with the idea of evolution. Obviously, since the author of the article can't even get this fact straight, it leads me to believe that he wants to believe whatever he wants, without checking the facts first.
I personally think it's clear that DNA isn't going to prove or disprove the creationist points. God made animals from the Earth just like He made man from the Earth. Boy, that DNA "proof" the author talked about was real hard to overcome. Thanks MS, for another wonderfully intelligent addition to our lives.
--
So, I don't believe what you believe, and you don't believe what I believe. Oh well, lets go get a beer.
"Most remarkable," writes Gatzer, "is the way that false theories and imagined phenomena sometimes spread through the scientific community. A kind of mass hysteria, which parallels in the world at large, such as UFO sightings alien abductions, 'recovered memory' and probably chronic fatigue syndrome, takes possession of a hitherto rational population, like a virus of the intellect. On such occasions scientists in some area of research throw aside, to the amazement of their colleagues, the intellectual constraints that had until then guided their working lives. They become selectively uncritical and intolerant of any unsought evidence. Sometimes such a perversion of the scientific method results from external, especially political, pressures, but at other times it is a spontaneous eruption."
Hmm, that's sounds a lot like the way that the theory of evolution has been blindly adhererd to and taught for so many years with it's only proof as Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. I'm not advocating that it's an incorrect theory, I'm just saying that proof is quite a bit on the light side for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn Mars rain destroyed it!
when combined with the fact that the last time they changed IP's (according to Netcraft) was around the end of August, which was the last time they experienced a "DDoS".....
r13
I saw on groklaw that someone found an IP that the SCO site was available on (216.250.128.20), which caused him/her to wonder if the morons just changed IP's for the site, and didn't update the DNS record in a timely manner. Seems a good possibility. I also notice on Netcraft that the last time they changed IP's was near the end of August, around the time of the last "DDOS" attack on SCO.. Seems like more then just a coincidence to me...
r13
There appears to be a full version in PDF on his site, among other interesting items. :)
c s/
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/graphi
Shesh, has there been any OFFICIAL word from valve regarding the delay, or is all this just a rumor manifesting it way through the news sites as fact? I think I'll take all these rumorous reports with a grain of salt until something more firm is given by the source of the game.
P.S., How the hell does cnn friggin money have the scoop on whether or not there is a playable version of HL2 floating around!?! I think I'll take that with a truckload of salt...
I've no desire to debate the usefullness of Knuth's works, but if you read the comments on Amazon for the box set Knuth himself addresses the reason that he used MIX. He's the last comment on there, titled Knuth's words on why assembly language, February 1, 2002.
Cheers,
r13
Hence the ZERO before the catch. :)
Reading through the majority of the highly moded posts, I was disturbed by the level of criticism the US is getting for this incident, and IT WAS THE ONE ATTACKED. This brings to mind an editorial written by the late Canadian Journalist, Gordon Sinclair...
.. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.
... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.
... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.
[QUOTE]
The Americans
...and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.
They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.
The Marshall Plan
I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.
Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times
When the Americans get out of this bind
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.
Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.
I hope Canada is not one of these.
[/QUOTE]
The interesting thing about this editorial is that it was written in 1973, and yet it still rings as true as it ever did. I personally am proud to have Canada as our neighbor, and am thankful for those who live there that feel our pain. People here have knocked them as cowards, but I know, and they know, that the real coward is the one who stikes anonymously from a distance.
r13
That post sure wasn't flamebait or anything...
Seriously though, have you ever really thought about what you're asking for when you say those things? Firstly, since the clone will be its own sentient being, it'll want rights. Think you can take their rights away after a few of your clones put the smack down on YOU and make you THEIR slave? Right, I'm sure you'll be able to command them around. I mean your mind and rights are superior to theirs, right? I guess we'll also just assume that they WANT us to take their organs whenever we need them.. Talk about opening a can of whoop! Also, what about the overpopulation of our already crowded planet? Sure, it's not bad enough already, lets have two or three clones each as well! That'll make things SO much better.
Why don't you wake up from your self-obsorption before you post this crap.
Let me start out by saying that I too am a Christian. I was brought up as a child going to church regularly. As a teenager I was emotionally and sexually abused by someone who should have known better, I became angry with God and became an athiest. I have looked into other types of beliefs, from mysticisms to evolution to agnosticism. None of them, to me, made sense, logically or emotionally, in their contexts. As a young adult I became a believer in Christ again. Mainly because I was shown the grace and unconditional acceptance, despite my shortcomings and sins, that should be displayed by all Christians, but usually is not. Christians are not meant to be perfect or judging of others, they are meant to be forgiven and forgiving of others. To me, Christianity is the only belief system that makes sense.
I agree with the sentiment that people get too extreme when it comes to this argument. Why do people who disagree on the issue of evolution v. creation, usually on logical terms, get so heated, illogical, and spiteful (dare I say emotionally logical) when attempting to refute it? People are entitled to respond in such a way, but I think by responding that way they do their arguments injustice. Responding with hatred only weakens your position, in my opinion. Can't we disagree without being disagreeable?
While I agree with that sentiment, I respectfully disagree with the notion that God is a logical being. Throughout the Bible, both OT and NT, God is defined as Love. Love is not logic, it is an emotion. To me, Love and logic are oxymoronic (i.e. like saying someone is a little giant).
I know the logical/philosophical argument of "If God is so loving, then why is there pain and suffering in the world?" from some discussions I've had with close friends.
Firstly, this implies that there is a God. In order to make this argument you must acknowledge that there is a God. You can believe in God or not, but since you are using this argument to disprove God, then we will assume that there is one. I personally think that it is much less of a leap of faith to believe in God then it is to believe in evolution, but that's my opinion and does not have to be yours.
Secondly, I do not believe that you can/should argue for God logically, since he is defined as an emotion. Besides, someone who argues against God logically has already made up his/her mind that they do not want to believe it. It would be better to argue about why they don't want to believe. What experiences have they had that have turned them off to it? The basis of Christianity is that of faith, belief without proof. It would be unwise to attempt to prove logically that God exists, from a Christian perspective anyway.
Thirdly, the assumption here is that pain is equivalent to evil. This I think is an incorrect assumption. For instance, say I am a father with a son. Say my son runs out into a busy street without looking to see if there are any cars coming, but luckily he does not get hit by one. As a father, I should/would scold my son (causing emotional pain/sufering) or give him a spanking (causing physical pain/suffering) to attempt to make him realize that he should not do that. Tell me, was my act of causing pain evil? No, instead it served to mold my son into looking out for himself and keeping safe. I did it because I love him, and do not want to lose him. It gives my son the knowledge/enlightenment needed to know that it was unwise to do such a thing. Granted, this is a crude argument, but it gets the point across. Love can use/cause pain to help mold those that are loved so that they will become more enlightened and kept safe.
Anyway, that is my two cents. You can hate me for my opinion if you like, but that doesn't mean that I have to hate you in return. On the contrary, I will still respect and accept what you have to say.
Cheers.
-- So you don't believe what I believe, and I don't believe what you believe. Oh well, how about we go get a beer.
Hehe, oh come on. None of the cheap stuff. I'm talkin' Harp's, Bass, Guiness.. I suppose Honey Brown and Killian's would be fine too.
I would definitely leave it to a MS owned news source to come up with one of the lamest stories I've ever read. All the author of the story does is rant his own personal views without going into any of the concrete evidence. He even gets the fact that Darwin didn't come up with, and according to some didn't endorse, the idea of evolution. Darwin's Origin of Species deals mainly with the idea of Natural Selection. From his work, other scientists came up with the idea of evolution. Obviously, since the author of the article can't even get this fact straight, it leads me to believe that he wants to believe whatever he wants, without checking the facts first.
I personally think it's clear that DNA isn't going to prove or disprove the creationist points. God made animals from the Earth just like He made man from the Earth. Boy, that DNA "proof" the author talked about was real hard to overcome. Thanks MS, for another wonderfully intelligent addition to our lives. -- So, I don't believe what you believe, and you don't believe what I believe. Oh well, lets go get a beer.
But are they Autobots or Decepticons? ;)
...
Since deception is a large part of the NSA's game, they're OBVIOUSLY Decepticons. I know, it's a forehead smacker.
"Most remarkable," writes Gatzer, "is the way that false theories and imagined phenomena sometimes spread through the scientific community. A kind of mass hysteria, which parallels in the world at large, such as UFO sightings alien abductions, 'recovered memory' and probably chronic fatigue syndrome, takes possession of a hitherto rational population, like a virus of the intellect. On such occasions scientists in some area of research throw aside, to the amazement of their colleagues, the intellectual constraints that had until then guided their working lives. They become selectively uncritical and intolerant of any unsought evidence. Sometimes such a perversion of the scientific method results from external, especially political, pressures, but at other times it is a spontaneous eruption."
Hmm, that's sounds a lot like the way that the theory of evolution has been blindly adhererd to and taught for so many years with it's only proof as Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. I'm not advocating that it's an incorrect theory, I'm just saying that proof is quite a bit on the light side for it.