No no... ill have to disagree: 100k bucks are a100k bucks. If it has no strings attached (and the ASF is pretty well versed in how to treat its members donations), take it and make it a better webserver.
Nah, they need not go that far. Just OPEN SOURCING a valid reference implementation would be okay.
Hell, HAVING a reference implementation AT ALL wouldnt hurt either!
And while we are on our wishlist, they should start transitioning from ooxml to odf, because that would be FRIENDLY to opensource instead of just yapping.
And then youre also quite ignorant: ooxml looses fidelity and office 2007 cant even open office 2000 files...
Man... who the hell do you think youre talking about?
Well... i dont think we know about the origin of life enough to make that broad a statement.
What if its the other way arround? Barring some primitive bacteria or virii that does this or that, you cant have an atmosphere thick enough to give oceans....etc.
Im just saying, the cause of the event "life on earth" is still unknown.
The heading sayz bush is being briefed. So it does have to do with him.
Having said that, thanks for the oportunity you give me to vocally reaffirm any readers that bush is an asshole and yes, is probably not enjoying this meeting with scientists because of that.
I managed to find the whole legal document this girls sent.
I still think its stupid, but I also think that, hey, if you explicitly threaten to RAPE someone (and yes, the girls do acuse a couple of ACs of it and yes, they did post explicitly that), then youre open to be law-fucked all over.
I appologize to anyone that might have felt offended by my initial knee-jerk reaction.
They DIDNT threaten the girls in any way i can find in the article.
Thats what has me angry at this: i mean, if someone says somthing ugly about you @slashdot, you may write to taco asking for their identity and then taco may point you to his usage rules that say that no-can-do-really-sorry. Another site may even remove the offensive comments and then other sites will tell you to shove it.
And thats AS FAR AS IT SHOULD GO if you didnt break any law.
And i mean, saying "id like to sodomize you. repeatedly" is really very offensive and more so in the context of the forums (a student forum interested in college admissions), but in NO WAY can it be a credible threat. Did they break the law? Im not sure, but it sure would be funny if there is a law against swearing at someone and now the idea is to follow through with it online... i mean heck, if the law exists, why isnt it enforced IN REALITY?
What about womens obligation to be REASONABLE beings?
In an internet forum, an anonymous post of: "I think I will sodomize her. Repeatedly." is as harmless as me putting here on slashdot: "I think Guillermo del Toro should make the hobbit with Hello Kitty drawings in mind" (hey, perhaps the second one is way worse!).
Yes, it will irk a geek/grl or two, but it would be UNREASONABLE to assume that I or the anonymous present ANY KIND OF danger to the girl or to The Hobbit.
In "any" other setting? What about a videoconference? What about a teleconfference? What about in an indie commic strip. What about in a paper tied to a dove's dick (yes, doves could have dicks if bitches like this didn't go out of their way to cut it)?
Comments are WORDS. Of course, if you run up to a lady and tell her youre going to rape her, well thats a threat with vailidity and its reasonable to suppose that you are going to attack her.
How is it reasonable to suppose that any AC can follow up to any kind of threat? Its NOT.
Slashdot Mirror
I find yours an excelent point in what makes TCO an important figure.
Too bad that its impossible to find out what that is since all the houses that calculate it are slanted one way or another.
In any case, you have efficiently depicted why the soho software market exists. Kudos to you.
No no... ill have to disagree: 100k bucks are a100k bucks. If it has no strings attached (and the ASF is pretty well versed in how to treat its members donations), take it and make it a better webserver.
Nah, they need not go that far. Just OPEN SOURCING a valid reference implementation would be okay.
Hell, HAVING a reference implementation AT ALL wouldnt hurt either!
And while we are on our wishlist, they should start transitioning from ooxml to odf, because that would be FRIENDLY to opensource instead of just yapping.
And then youre also quite ignorant: ooxml looses fidelity and office 2007 cant even open office 2000 files...
Man... who the hell do you think youre talking about?
Well thankfully for the rest of the world, foxconn thought that breaking linux on their stuff was a bad idea.
So im glad so many people didnt listen to you.
Congratulations, foxconn, for listening to your market.
Bring our the lizzard, ask it to move the rocks.
Sheesh. Such smart people didnt think of THAT?
Well... because the news say that the water found is somehow related to the "potential for life".
Well... i dont think we know about the origin of life enough to make that broad a statement.
What if its the other way arround? Barring some primitive bacteria or virii that does this or that, you cant have an atmosphere thick enough to give oceans....etc.
Im just saying, the cause of the event "life on earth" is still unknown.
Or not breathe at all but use some other way to provide themselves power. :)
Ah...
Baby Steps
Baby Steps
Heh...
Spooky.
Have a cow man.
The heading sayz bush is being briefed. So it does have to do with him.
Having said that, thanks for the oportunity you give me to vocally reaffirm any readers that bush is an asshole and yes, is probably not enjoying this meeting with scientists because of that.
For freedom to fail, someone wouldve had to give it a chance.
Freedom did not fail: it died. And it was not a natural death: it was killed.
I made i mistake. From the wired article, it cannot be derived that they threatened to rape.
From the court documents (which I found after some more digging), they certatinly did.
So i repent: They do deserve to be punished.
After going beyond the wired article, I withraw my initial position of this being a free speech thing.
They DO DESERVE to be exposed.
They actually DID threaten to rape with her FULL name.
Now that deserves some serious spanking.
I HATE TO DO THIS:
I managed to find the whole legal document this girls sent.
I still think its stupid, but I also think that, hey, if you explicitly threaten to RAPE someone (and yes, the girls do acuse a couple of ACs of it and yes, they did post explicitly that), then youre open to be law-fucked all over.
I appologize to anyone that might have felt offended by my initial knee-jerk reaction.
And thats whats wrong about fascism: that you can be considered threatening for thinking this or that.
Its really, really idiotic.
They DIDNT threaten the girls in any way i can find in the article.
Thats what has me angry at this: i mean, if someone says somthing ugly about you @slashdot, you may write to taco asking for their identity and then taco may point you to his usage rules that say that no-can-do-really-sorry. Another site may even remove the offensive comments and then other sites will tell you to shove it.
And thats AS FAR AS IT SHOULD GO if you didnt break any law.
And i mean, saying "id like to sodomize you. repeatedly" is really very offensive and more so in the context of the forums (a student forum interested in college admissions), but in NO WAY can it be a credible threat. Did they break the law? Im not sure, but it sure would be funny if there is a law against swearing at someone and now the idea is to follow through with it online... i mean heck, if the law exists, why isnt it enforced IN REALITY?
This is ridiculous.
A threat to RAPE someone, id agree. A threat to sodomize someone, does NOT imply it wouldnt be consesual.
It might be irony in poor taste, it might be a whole number of things.
And then, even if it was a threat to rape, it would need to qualify as a THREAT.
If you want to call a prticular statement a THREAT, you need to prove that someone put you or purports to put you in danger.
An internet post saying "i wanna sodomize you" might be ugly, but it poses NO DANGER AT ALL.
Its idiotic, and you know it.
Yeah.... and this kids DIDNT threaten to do ANYTHING.
All this examples are credible threats or comited crimes.
Saying you want to sodomize someone (not even rape, just fuck'em in the ass), in an anonymous internet forum is NOT A CREDIBLE THREAT.
Hell... its not a threat at all.
Is an anoynymous post a "threat"?
Doesnt a threat require some sort of plausible DANGER?
What about womens obligation to be REASONABLE beings?
In an internet forum, an anonymous post of:
"I think I will sodomize her. Repeatedly." is as harmless as me putting here on slashdot:
"I think Guillermo del Toro should make the hobbit with Hello Kitty drawings in mind" (hey, perhaps the second one is way worse!).
Yes, it will irk a geek/grl or two, but it would be UNREASONABLE to assume that I or the anonymous present ANY KIND OF danger to the girl or to The Hobbit.
Its just plain stupid.
1) Effective, impune evil, REQUIRES anonymity.
2) Anonymity DOES NOT require any kind of evil.
Precluding anonymity ON THE NET on the basis of substracting effectiveness to evil acts is just the most idiotic idea i have ever read.
Evil guys need to be anonymous to be effective at their stuff. But no ammount of law in the net is going to stop them.
It doesnt stop them in meatspace, how the FUCK is it going to stop them online and WHY, for christ sakes, would that be correct?
Whats the EEEEEVVVVIIIIILLLL you can inflict in an internet forum?
Yeah, do you imagine UBL in the NYT forums reaking all sort of havoc as an AC, right?
OOOoooOOOO thats SCARY!
In "any" other setting? What about a videoconference? What about a teleconfference? What about in an indie commic strip. What about in a paper tied to a dove's dick (yes, doves could have dicks if bitches like this didn't go out of their way to cut it)?
Comments are WORDS. Of course, if you run up to a lady and tell her youre going to rape her, well thats a threat with vailidity and its reasonable to suppose that you are going to attack her.
How is it reasonable to suppose that any AC can follow up to any kind of threat? Its NOT.
Stop being unreasonable!