Agreed - he sounds like Gladys Skinner, when she's in the supermarket, and is picking on the bagboy..
Gladys Skinner: "I've changed my mind - I want it all in one bag, but I don't want that bag to be heavy!" Squeaky-voiced teen: "I don't think that's possible." Gladys Skinner: "What are you? The 'possible' police?"
I'm not the parent poster, but I think it's probably because of the fact that it reduces the power of god.
Basically, ID says that anything we can't directly observe or understand was made by god.
As we see more and understand more of how our world works, that means (logically) that god is less and less powerful. Right now (according to ID), god is directly responsible for "X" amount of the world around us, where "X" is everything we don't understand, or haven't observed directly. As we are constantly learning, that means that god is less and less responsible for the world around us, up until the point where we understand everything, and hence god (to quote Douglas Adams) disappears in a puff of logic.
Couldn't it be said that SCO is really asking for future plans on major additions to the kernel
No, it couldn't.
This lawsuit is (ostensibly) because IBM did something wrong. "Did" as in *past tense*. SCOX is saying "IBM hurt us". They are not saying (and have never said) "IBM is planning to hurt us."
How the hell would PLANS for something that might happen at some unspecified time in the future possibly be relevant to the current proceedings?
Disclaimer: I'm not a kernel hacker, nor do I play one on TV.
Do your really believe that the answer is to trade stability for convenience? As the parent said, we would be right back to where Windows is.
Stupid question: is it possible (with the current kernel architecture) to have them run in userspace?
I realize there are performance implications (IIRC MS tried it with NT3.5) but if it's possible, could it give them the ability to "try" supporting Linux, while still maintaining the stability we expect?
I'm waiting for a worm that determines you're behind, say, a Linksys firewall, then does sustained dictionary attacks against 192.168.1.1 (username = blank, couldn't be easier!) and opens up the needed ports to the infected machine.
Don't hold your breath - I suspect you'll be waiting a *long* time.
If you want a command shell, it would be much easier to open an outbound TCP session and attach a shell to it. This has already been done.
Meaning that you take a hit before you start playing?
there's a huge difference between walking into an empty room and skulking into a brilliantly shaded, lit room with curtains wafting in a breeze that I can hide behind in Splinter Cell.
Wow - I guess pot really *can* improve your gaming experience:o)
OK, I'm not adopted, but I am in a similar situation - I don't know who my father is. I've never met him, and don't know his name (he wanted my mother to have an abortion, she refused, and they never spoke again.)
I've had people (including my wife) ask me "don't you want to meet him, or at least find out who he is?"
My response is pretty much what QuantumG said - finding out won't solve anything. It won't change who I am. It won't give me any insight into my nature. It would just be a waste of my time.
Not everybody who is ignorant of their lineage is obsessed with it.
THIS JUST IN: Most people who use computers are idiots, and anyone with half a brain could get them to tell passwords and other sensitive info in a day or two of work.'
UPDATE: We're talking about systems administrators. These are not "most people who use computers"
"Why would I support a browser with less than 1% of the market share?" [...] He's a smart tech guy
No, he really isn't.
He has to no more support firefox than he has to support the Ford or Chevy vehicles that his customers drive. Why would any smart businessman choose to exclude customers (no matter how small the percentage) when it costs them no more to allow access to everybody?
He has one of two choices: he can choose to use flexible, standard methods that work for everybody, or he can choose to customize his site to work with a single product that can change at a moment's notice (in which case he has to rewrite his apps.)
The fact that it appears obvious in retrospect does not mean it is section 103 obvious
OF COURSE it's obvious. It's obvious to *ANYONE* who's been doing web application development for more than a month. It's obvious in 2005, it was obvious in 2000, and it's was obvious in 1997.
Here's the problem: "We need a way for our website to remember customers, so they don't have to enter their information every time they visit the site."
If the *FIRST* answer any web developer would come up with (yes, even before the patent was issued) isn't "put it in a cookie", then that web developer needs to be fired for incompetance. This is what cookies were *designed* for.
For those DBs that use autogenerated field types (i.e., SERIAL in PostGres, AUTOINC attribute in many others) getting the generated ID for the record you inserted is...problematic at best.
For Postgres, this is patently false. You can get the value of a sequence (serial) either before or after your INSERT.
Hehehe.. type that into Google and hit "I'm feeling Lucky". Good for a laugh. Almost as funny as the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes (or even funnier, as it's real.)
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed - he sounds like Gladys Skinner, when she's in the supermarket, and is picking on the bagboy..
Gladys Skinner: "I've changed my mind - I want it all in one bag, but I don't want that bag to be heavy!"
Squeaky-voiced teen: "I don't think that's possible."
Gladys Skinner: "What are you? The 'possible' police?"
You say that it corruptive of reliigon.
I'm not the parent poster, but I think it's probably because of the fact that it reduces the power of god.
Basically, ID says that anything we can't directly observe or understand was made by god.
As we see more and understand more of how our world works, that means (logically) that god is less and less powerful. Right now (according to ID), god is directly responsible for "X" amount of the world around us, where "X" is everything we don't understand, or haven't observed directly. As we are constantly learning, that means that god is less and less responsible for the world around us, up until the point where we understand everything, and hence god (to quote Douglas Adams) disappears in a puff of logic.
I may indeed be quite wrong
That's OK, everybody is wrong from time to time.
is there anything wrong with allowing "materials critical of evolution" to be taught?
As long as they're scientific in nature, then no.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Consider yourself corrected.
is there really no scientific basis for any criticism of evolution
No - that's why it's still a theory. If there were actually scientific evidence that contradicts it, then this wouldn't be an issue.
If you can provide scientific, peer-reviewed, evidence that contradicts evolution, I'm sure that we'll all be interested in hearing it.
Couldn't it be said that SCO is really asking for future plans on major additions to the kernel
No, it couldn't.
This lawsuit is (ostensibly) because IBM did something wrong. "Did" as in *past tense*. SCOX is saying "IBM hurt us". They are not saying (and have never said) "IBM is planning to hurt us."
How the hell would PLANS for something that might happen at some unspecified time in the future possibly be relevant to the current proceedings?
In mid 1992 there was 0.95c+
Was that Linus? I thought that was someone else'e attempt at changing the kernel from C to C++?
Disclaimer: I'm not a kernel hacker, nor do I play one on TV.
Do your really believe that the answer is to trade stability for convenience? As the parent said, we would be right back to where Windows is.
Stupid question: is it possible (with the current kernel architecture) to have them run in userspace?
I realize there are performance implications (IIRC MS tried it with NT3.5) but if it's possible, could it give them the ability to "try" supporting Linux, while still maintaining the stability we expect?
I'm waiting for a worm that determines you're behind, say, a Linksys firewall, then does sustained dictionary attacks against 192.168.1.1 (username = blank, couldn't be easier!) and opens up the needed ports to the infected machine.
Don't hold your breath - I suspect you'll be waiting a *long* time.
If you want a command shell, it would be much easier to open an outbound TCP session and attach a shell to it. This has already been done.
So if you refuse that EULA, Sony would argue that you don't have any rights to the content (on a Windows PC at least)
Putting aside that you're just speculating, why?
If you refuse an EULA, how can it be binding on you?
If you refuse an EULA, and have the right use the disc on a Mac or Linux, why would you magically *not* have the rights on Windows?
My son goes to Perochial school
Cool - so like they teach everything via Greek mythology there?
"Annus" means "year"
:o)
umm, I'm sure theres a goatse joke in there somewhere..
I'm a toking gamer
:o)
Meaning that you take a hit before you start playing?
there's a huge difference between walking into an empty room and skulking into a brilliantly shaded, lit room with curtains wafting in a breeze that I can hide behind in Splinter Cell.
Wow - I guess pot really *can* improve your gaming experience
rejecting a prize is insulting
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
and generally doesn't make people willing to hear your suggestions as to how the money should be otherwise spent.
And? The point isn't that the people giving the money will listen, it's that the people who *aren't* giving the money will listen. And they do.
OK, I'm not adopted, but I am in a similar situation - I don't know who my father is. I've never met him, and don't know his name (he wanted my mother to have an abortion, she refused, and they never spoke again.)
I've had people (including my wife) ask me "don't you want to meet him, or at least find out who he is?"
My response is pretty much what QuantumG said - finding out won't solve anything. It won't change who I am. It won't give me any insight into my nature. It would just be a waste of my time.
Not everybody who is ignorant of their lineage is obsessed with it.
THIS JUST IN:
Most people who use computers are idiots, and anyone with half a brain could get them to tell passwords and other sensitive info in a day or two of work.'
UPDATE:
We're talking about systems administrators. These are not "most people who use computers"
"Why would I support a browser with less than 1% of the market share?" [...] He's a smart tech guy
No, he really isn't.
He has to no more support firefox than he has to support the Ford or Chevy vehicles that his customers drive. Why would any smart businessman choose to exclude customers (no matter how small the percentage) when it costs them no more to allow access to everybody?
He has one of two choices: he can choose to use flexible, standard methods that work for everybody, or he can choose to customize his site to work with a single product that can change at a moment's notice (in which case he has to rewrite his apps.)
Choosing the second option is in no way "smart".
Don't be riddiculous.
Don't you mean rediculous?
This is Slashdot.
Yes it is - and if you're gonna misspell a word here, you should do it the correct way.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2005-10- 21&res=l
The fact that it appears obvious in retrospect does not mean it is section 103 obvious
OF COURSE it's obvious. It's obvious to *ANYONE* who's been doing web application development for more than a month. It's obvious in 2005, it was obvious in 2000, and it's was obvious in 1997.
Here's the problem:
"We need a way for our website to remember customers, so they don't have to enter their information every time they visit the site."
If the *FIRST* answer any web developer would come up with (yes, even before the patent was issued) isn't "put it in a cookie", then that web developer needs to be fired for incompetance. This is what cookies were *designed* for.
Think about how long it took to fix the VM bugs in linux 2.4
:o) /me ducks
They fixed the VM bugs in 2.4?
For those DBs that use autogenerated field types (i.e., SERIAL in PostGres, AUTOINC attribute in many others) getting the generated ID for the record you inserted is...problematic at best.
For Postgres, this is patently false. You can get the value of a sequence (serial) either before or after your INSERT.
people are completely misunderstanding what I was saying
And you're completely misunderstanding what they're saying.
I'm talking about a list of the questions, and whether or not they are completed on a main page. Simple as that.
If you're just displaying a list of questions that's not gonna change, why are you using SQL at all? Why are you not simply using a flat text file?
my way is quick and to the point
And wrong.
What's next, DVDA?!!!
Hehehe.. type that into Google and hit "I'm feeling Lucky". Good for a laugh. Almost as funny as the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes (or even funnier, as it's real.)
What is it with the rash of jokes being downmodded now? This is the fifth or sixth truly funny post this week that I've seen modded down.
Come on, i's *funny* (and yes, I'm Canadian.)
there's a 266MiB/sec bus link
Wow - that's a *LOT* of Tommy Lee Joneses and Will Smiths!
Take my bank for instance. Their online banking doesn't work all that well in any other browser than IE.
Not all banks are like that, and you can always switch banks (or threaten to switch.)
I bank with TD/Canada Trust. I use their internet banking every day, and it works perfectly in Firefox.
Let them know that "Use IE" is not an acceptable answer.