Religion kills. Period. It is a sickness and the cause of more misery and murder committed by man against man than any other human intellectual construct in history.
Wrong again.
Hatred kills. Period. Greed for land, money, power, etc. by twisted, malintentioned church leaders cause people to think it's the religion, rather than the hate, that kills people. That's why all religions the world over are guilty of crimes against humanity. Because hatred and greed get in the way of a well intentioned doctrine and twist people's minds. It's not the religion doing that, the religion is there to tell them how they are SUPPOSED to act. But as is human nature, people do the wrong things and go out and murder in the name of religion. So without religion or a way out of this awful mess of constantly wanting to do evil, everyone would be running around killing each other! When will people realize that they are not inherrantly good? Oh yeah, I forgot, they're constantly wanting to be bad and have a very difficult time condemning themselves, because hey, that would mean they are bad, but they think they're good! (See the endless circular reasoning this produces?)
Now, the problem with Scientology as a "religion" is that it's not. They actively pursue suppressing and enslaving their 'converts' - which is evil. They sue for copyright infringement, which means they're out for the almighty buck, which means they are greedy - greed is also evil. And if you would say this is all relative to what I believe, think that argument through the whole way: I might then want to say that killing you is my perogative and not an evil thing to me because you're an idiot. You say that's not ok as everyone condemns killling as wrong. Oops! You just violated your own 'law of relativity'! How can you tell me what to believe or do or say or claim as the right way of living? You just claimed that everything is relative.
The Scientology bashing continues because they *claim* to be a religion. But instead, they're more concerned with their profits (that's why copyright law was created) more than the betterment of their followers (which is why most religions exist). They are obviously a company, and the farce that they are anything but is what is upsetting to so many/.'ers. Their lack of intellectual integrity far outweighs their claim to intellectual copyrights.
The Jedi sect from NZ (or Australia, can't remember) would actually call these mitichlorians and would say they should not be 'exorcised' from the body. So who's right?
Oh yeah, I forgot, neither is right because it's a bunch of SCIENCE FICTION !!!
Also, even the post office and telephone companies have laws to deal with certain abuses (i.e. mail fraud, harrassing phone calls, etc.)
Yes, but the phone company and post office don't get sued when I make a threatening telephone call or I send a cleverly disguised bomb. Those are simply self-imposed restrictions (just like slashdot's moderation system) that are simply meant to filter out the majority of idiots.
Actually, whenever my local newspaper reviews a popular movie and gives it two stars for failing to be some mostmodernistic bullshit of a movie, but just entertaining, I know it's sure to be a hit. So in effect, 'modding' the movie down, actually makes me want to go see it. So micheal isn't moderating anything which would 'tamper' with the evidence. Instead, it gives me a basis for whether or not I want to read what micheal thinks is good or bad.
While I agree with what you say, let's not forget the opportunity costs. I'm sure 5 million dollars in research could be used more effectively (and profitably) in suing companies for patent and copyright infringements, no matter how ridiculous the arguments may seem. Both R&D and lawsuits have risk factors on whether or not the company can profit from such actions. I'm guessing it costs less to sue over patent/copyright infringement, than to R&D a whole new technology from the ground up. (Which it seems Rambus would have to do to fix their current situation).
The whole reason I like web content, at least the good old -no banner- kind, was because it was free of distractions, and I could go learn about whatever I wanted at my own pace. No more enduring through TV commercials just to watch a show that entertained me. I'm glad so many *really annoying* websites are going under. Wasn't the BLINK html tag a gigantic no-no when it came to designing webpages early on because everyone hated it? Well, guess what, all the dumb ad agencies never read that rule.
But in my personal opinion, getting a job is mostly a combination of being in the right place at the right time with the right credentials...and a hell of a lot of luck.
Getting to know 'people' is more important than all of your above assumptions. Network yourself (not just your computer) to everyone you meet, and you're sure to find that right time and place for someone to hook you up with a great job. Often times, the really good jobs are lurking just below the surface of what is 'publicly' available in the newspaper each morning. Learn to network with people, and you'll learn how to never be without a job.
But they have proven to be anti-open source with recent comments from one of their exec's. If I were running a business, I would certainly not want any competition on the block, cause then I could hike prices and get richer. It's all about greed, so yes, lots of slashdotters get pissed off at M$. Slashdot is a place to rant about your least favorite government, law, company, etc. as it pertains to technology. It's also a place to discuss new technology and science and what cool things can come of it. So this just happens to be one of the rant sessions. Let everyone bash M$ as needed. That's why slashdot is here and thriving.
Ahh, but big business sometimes needs an expediant and cheap solution to make things work. I'm sure there will be more than one company that says: "Well, we've got all this Unix stuff running, and we can't just start over on WinNT, but.Net is such an industry powerhouse...
"Let's just buy the stupid software and get this thing running now!"
Too bad that the opportunity costs will be once again, an unstable OS.
"M$: Some of our protocols are just inherently incompatible with Linux/Unix. We cannot make Linux less prone to crashing when running.Net services. That's the developers of that OS's problem, but WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP run.Net services wonderfully!"
The whole idea of communism sprang up as a byproduct of the amazing amounts of wealth that industrialists were getting and the abysmal conditions that they ground their workers into in order to get some more money.
In theory, yes, communism is supposed to distribute equal wealth to everyone. But in practice, this is about as far from the ideal as it can get. In a communist state, those in political power have all the money (as opposed to the common businessmen) and can regulate laws that not only oppress the businessman, but the commoner as well, thereby keeping them in power with all the money. At least until the public gets so angry at their distributed misery that they fight the powers that be.
Therefore, the government's response to this distributed revolution called the Internet will be to regulate it as well. Give power to the businesses to regulate their consumers and track the consumer's every move, but make the businesses subservient to government officials by regulating which businesses are properly greasing the hands of those government officials. We've already proven that the man with the most money wins when it comes to politics these days (Hillary, W, etc.).
Exactly. I especially like the fact that this psuedo-study was performed by some of the worst performers in the privacy arena today. Microsoft built one of the least secure email programs (Outlook), AT&T can't seem to stop telemarketing me, Sun wants to make companies 'rent' software over the internet (sure, lots of privacy there), and AOL/TimeWarner are the biggest conglomerate media company ever in America.
I think the reason they did this study was to show to the politicians just how much money they could skim off of consumers in a farce to 'protect our privacy'. Hmmm, I'll bet some of that money will find its way into some deep political pockets.
What I want to know, is why did they include that last paragraph at the end about the 'dark side' of every silver lining? They proceed to explain that hackers could use this technology to similarly equip their own correspondence with InTether making that unbreakable. Oh yeah! I forgot, the all-knowing US government developed this thing called Carnivore which can troll all correspondence on the Net. Well gee, this guy worked for the government. I'll bet they just built some Carnivore backdoors right into this InTether crap and are just trying to entice hackers to use it to make it even easier to justify monitoring *everyone's* email and file transmissions. Sounds good to me, Joe Schmoe numb-nuts consumer!
Echelon has now added me to their database of political dissidents for using the words: Carnivore, Net, hacker and US in this posting. Resistance is futile!
Great, so I guess you can't take some of your favorite games over to your friend's house without lugging your own PS2 over to his house as well. Thanks for that wonderful pain in the arse Sony! Plus I'm sure there will be plenty of cracks that come out soon to circumvent this anyways. What's the point?!
I would suggest striking out on your own, but I don't think this will make your problems go away. In fact, I bet it would just make them worse because then the company could say that the work you developed for your new self-owned business was actually theirs, and that you were in effect, stealing.
While categorizing everyone as a 'whackjob' is rather harsh and uncaring, I would like to see some more of that 'Holy Underwear' that Mormons are supposed to wear every day. Now ya gotta admit that that is a bit silly. Of course, the Puritans of early US history wore black and white every day, which was also a bit silly, but that was more of a commitment to remain simple and not attract undue attention to oneself. It wasn't part of their fundamental beliefs. (At least I don't think it was).
Re:end of pay phones?!?
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
I think what the 'end of pay phones' is talking about is the inherrent price drops that this technology will eventually incur, thereby allowing 'pay-phones' to dispense cheap paper-phones for $.50 and a couple minutes of talk time, just like today's pay phones. No more actual phone on the corner, just a paper phone dispensor.
No, Mormonism borrows from Christianity and the Bible, but does not adhere to it as the only 'revelation from God'. Joseph Smith also wrote his own works which the Mormons claim as God inspired in addition to the Bible. Most 'Christians' (we're talking protestant and Catholic organizations here) would define Christianity as those people who believe the Bible is the only revealed 'Word of God' and that it cannot be added to.
In regards to sueing for 'trade secrets' I have no idea if Mormons would do such a thing. They do make Christianity look bad in general if you ask me, as they claim adherence to Christian standards, but they cling to Joseph Smith's writings as truth (which Christians do not). Besides, free copies of the book of Mormon are in hotels everywhere, so I doubt they care much about free distribution of that work.
And I do not think the goal of writing religious texts should be to make money. That's a cult. Writing of religious texts should definitely be for creating a better way of living.
I guess you could argue that this gives room to sue someone who posts information on the internet slamming a religion that they disagree with (at least in Sweden).
Unless it's a cult, I thought the purpose of a 'religion' as loosely as it can be defined, was to reach out to people and provide them with a moral/ethical basis of beliefs. Why would Scientology try to 'patent' their way of religion. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. try to reach out to people and say: "Here, these are our religious documents. Use them and you'll be a better person." And if people disagree, they don't sue them for doing so, they just label them an non-believer of that religion. This is ridiculous, and I would have to now completely believe that Scientology is in fact a cult due to its secretive ways. Sounds more like a big business than a religion to me.
Nobody has yet sufficiently explained how this guy's skull and helmet are going to survive breaking through the sound barrier. It's my understanding, that once something breaks the sound barrier, the air 'cone' in front of the nose of the aircraft or missile moves slightly aft of the cone of the aircraft. Therefore, to break the sound barrier you need a pointed cone 'nose' on your aircraft to punch through the resulting air wave that is generated while you fly through the air. So is this guy gonna wear a pointy helmet to accomplish this? Will we have a conehead from outer space come visit our planet?:)
Seriously though, I don't understand how his body will survive punching through the 'sound barrier' (read: atmosphere) without a more rigid support system than just his bones and a flame resistant space suit.
Replace hacktivism with cracktivism when referring to one person's breaking into a system and defacing and/or destroying it. Call it Cyber Terrorism when a political group seeks to deface/destroy a ruling parties' systems for said country in which the terrorism occurs. And call it Civil Cyber Disobedience (aka - Hacktivism) when a group perpetuates the 'illegal' activities in mass when they disagree with a certain law or form of law (DMCA, CSS) that seeks to circumvent that which the group deems inhumanitarian or a spit in the face of fundamental rights as defined by previous law.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong again.
Hatred kills. Period. Greed for land, money, power, etc. by twisted, malintentioned church leaders cause people to think it's the religion, rather than the hate, that kills people. That's why all religions the world over are guilty of crimes against humanity. Because hatred and greed get in the way of a well intentioned doctrine and twist people's minds. It's not the religion doing that, the religion is there to tell them how they are SUPPOSED to act. But as is human nature, people do the wrong things and go out and murder in the name of religion. So without religion or a way out of this awful mess of constantly wanting to do evil, everyone would be running around killing each other! When will people realize that they are not inherrantly good? Oh yeah, I forgot, they're constantly wanting to be bad and have a very difficult time condemning themselves, because hey, that would mean they are bad, but they think they're good! (See the endless circular reasoning this produces?)
Now, the problem with Scientology as a "religion" is that it's not. They actively pursue suppressing and enslaving their 'converts' - which is evil. They sue for copyright infringement, which means they're out for the almighty buck, which means they are greedy - greed is also evil. And if you would say this is all relative to what I believe, think that argument through the whole way: I might then want to say that killing you is my perogative and not an evil thing to me because you're an idiot. You say that's not ok as everyone condemns killling as wrong. Oops! You just violated your own 'law of relativity'! How can you tell me what to believe or do or say or claim as the right way of living? You just claimed that everything is relative.
The Scientology bashing continues because they *claim* to be a religion. But instead, they're more concerned with their profits (that's why copyright law was created) more than the betterment of their followers (which is why most religions exist). They are obviously a company, and the farce that they are anything but is what is upsetting to so many /.'ers. Their lack of intellectual integrity far outweighs their claim to intellectual copyrights.
As a certain PBS show says: "Keep your stick on the ice. We're all in this together."
Oh yeah, I forgot, neither is right because it's a bunch of SCIENCE FICTION !!!
Yes, but the phone company and post office don't get sued when I make a threatening telephone call or I send a cleverly disguised bomb. Those are simply self-imposed restrictions (just like slashdot's moderation system) that are simply meant to filter out the majority of idiots.
Actually, whenever my local newspaper reviews a popular movie and gives it two stars for failing to be some mostmodernistic bullshit of a movie, but just entertaining, I know it's sure to be a hit. So in effect, 'modding' the movie down, actually makes me want to go see it. So micheal isn't moderating anything which would 'tamper' with the evidence. Instead, it gives me a basis for whether or not I want to read what micheal thinks is good or bad.
While I agree with what you say, let's not forget the opportunity costs. I'm sure 5 million dollars in research could be used more effectively (and profitably) in suing companies for patent and copyright infringements, no matter how ridiculous the arguments may seem. Both R&D and lawsuits have risk factors on whether or not the company can profit from such actions. I'm guessing it costs less to sue over patent/copyright infringement, than to R&D a whole new technology from the ground up. (Which it seems Rambus would have to do to fix their current situation).
The whole reason I like web content, at least the good old -no banner- kind, was because it was free of distractions, and I could go learn about whatever I wanted at my own pace. No more enduring through TV commercials just to watch a show that entertained me. I'm glad so many *really annoying* websites are going under. Wasn't the BLINK html tag a gigantic no-no when it came to designing webpages early on because everyone hated it? Well, guess what, all the dumb ad agencies never read that rule.
"Just when I thought you couldn't be any geekier,
you go, . . . and TOTALLY redeem yourself!"
Getting to know 'people' is more important than all of your above assumptions. Network yourself (not just your computer) to everyone you meet, and you're sure to find that right time and place for someone to hook you up with a great job. Often times, the really good jobs are lurking just below the surface of what is 'publicly' available in the newspaper each morning. Learn to network with people, and you'll learn how to never be without a job.
But they have proven to be anti-open source with recent comments from one of their exec's. If I were running a business, I would certainly not want any competition on the block, cause then I could hike prices and get richer. It's all about greed, so yes, lots of slashdotters get pissed off at M$. Slashdot is a place to rant about your least favorite government, law, company, etc. as it pertains to technology. It's also a place to discuss new technology and science and what cool things can come of it. So this just happens to be one of the rant sessions. Let everyone bash M$ as needed. That's why slashdot is here and thriving.
"Let's just buy the stupid software and get this thing running now!"
Too bad that the opportunity costs will be once again, an unstable OS.
"M$: Some of our protocols are just inherently incompatible with Linux/Unix. We cannot make Linux less prone to crashing when running .Net services. That's the developers of that OS's problem, but WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP run .Net services wonderfully!"
In theory, yes, communism is supposed to distribute equal wealth to everyone. But in practice, this is about as far from the ideal as it can get. In a communist state, those in political power have all the money (as opposed to the common businessmen) and can regulate laws that not only oppress the businessman, but the commoner as well, thereby keeping them in power with all the money. At least until the public gets so angry at their distributed misery that they fight the powers that be.
Therefore, the government's response to this distributed revolution called the Internet will be to regulate it as well. Give power to the businesses to regulate their consumers and track the consumer's every move, but make the businesses subservient to government officials by regulating which businesses are properly greasing the hands of those government officials. We've already proven that the man with the most money wins when it comes to politics these days (Hillary, W, etc.).
I think the reason they did this study was to show to the politicians just how much money they could skim off of consumers in a farce to 'protect our privacy'. Hmmm, I'll bet some of that money will find its way into some deep political pockets.
Echelon has now added me to their database of political dissidents for using the words: Carnivore, Net, hacker and US in this posting. Resistance is futile!
Great, so I guess you can't take some of your favorite games over to your friend's house without lugging your own PS2 over to his house as well. Thanks for that wonderful pain in the arse Sony! Plus I'm sure there will be plenty of cracks that come out soon to circumvent this anyways. What's the point?!
I would suggest striking out on your own, but I don't think this will make your problems go away. In fact, I bet it would just make them worse because then the company could say that the work you developed for your new self-owned business was actually theirs, and that you were in effect, stealing.
While categorizing everyone as a 'whackjob' is rather harsh and uncaring, I would like to see some more of that 'Holy Underwear' that Mormons are supposed to wear every day. Now ya gotta admit that that is a bit silly. Of course, the Puritans of early US history wore black and white every day, which was also a bit silly, but that was more of a commitment to remain simple and not attract undue attention to oneself. It wasn't part of their fundamental beliefs. (At least I don't think it was).
I think what the 'end of pay phones' is talking about is the inherrent price drops that this technology will eventually incur, thereby allowing 'pay-phones' to dispense cheap paper-phones for $.50 and a couple minutes of talk time, just like today's pay phones. No more actual phone on the corner, just a paper phone dispensor.
In regards to sueing for 'trade secrets' I have no idea if Mormons would do such a thing. They do make Christianity look bad in general if you ask me, as they claim adherence to Christian standards, but they cling to Joseph Smith's writings as truth (which Christians do not). Besides, free copies of the book of Mormon are in hotels everywhere, so I doubt they care much about free distribution of that work.
And I do not think the goal of writing religious texts should be to make money. That's a cult. Writing of religious texts should definitely be for creating a better way of living.
I guess you could argue that this gives room to sue someone who posts information on the internet slamming a religion that they disagree with (at least in Sweden).
Seriously though, I don't understand how his body will survive punching through the 'sound barrier' (read: atmosphere) without a more rigid support system than just his bones and a flame resistant space suit.
Replace hacktivism with cracktivism when referring to one person's breaking into a system and defacing and/or destroying it. Call it Cyber Terrorism when a political group seeks to deface/destroy a ruling parties' systems for said country in which the terrorism occurs. And call it Civil Cyber Disobedience (aka - Hacktivism) when a group perpetuates the 'illegal' activities in mass when they disagree with a certain law or form of law (DMCA, CSS) that seeks to circumvent that which the group deems inhumanitarian or a spit in the face of fundamental rights as defined by previous law.