Do you realize how much damage was done to how many people because of this guy? Take some time and reflect on the pain caused to others, because that's what REALLY matters.
So your argument is directed at Bill Gates specificaly and not to all rich people? If so, that is an issue for the courts. Until they can get Bill Gates on something, the money is still his. Those are the rules.
For every innovation you can cite coming out of communism, there are many more that came out of capitalism.
So does this mean we should then trust one person who doesn't have any checks and balances but has the resources of a small country and a proven track records of shady business practices? You first.
What do you mean "trust one person"? Bill Gates OWNS his money! You make it sound as if someone crowned him royalty. He EARNED IT it's HIS! He provided a product/service that millions of people found useful, and they paid him for it. It's HIS MONEY! I don't get why some people can't get that through their heads. Why do you or anyone else have claim to what someone else rightfully earned?
Note, please don't bring in the issue of the M$ monopoly. That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument can be applied to any rich person.
It's HIS MONEY! Do you get it? It's HIS MONEY! What makes people like you think you have the right to rob him, or anybody else of what's rightfully theirs?
Another short-sighted and flawed vision. First, it's his money, rightfully so. He earned it fair and square, until a democratic capitalist society.
What you are preaching is NOTHING short of communism.
Second, there's the issue of incentive. Yes capitalism can lead to few individuals with an insane amount of wealth, but what are the upsides? You promote and encourage innovation and competition, which lead to a much better society for ALL.
Communism, which you're preaching, does away with incentives. Look at all of the wonderful innovations of this century. How much of it came from communist countries? People are born selfish. Nothing, I mean NOTHING can ever change that, short of a gun to the head. Communism will never work.
Oh and btw, when you say "democratically represented government", it ain't just you that counts. The people have voted, and the overwhelming majority (at least in the U.S.) support capitalism.
It's funny how I was just met with some Internap sales people a few months ago. They were bragging about how their network infrastructure was superior to most others, since it intelligently routes traffic to the path of shortest response (not hops).
They even bragged to me how their network uptime SLA is 100%! I mean good god, now I find out this is the SECOND time it's happened (from the livejournal update site)???
Incompetent users with infected machines are more than just an annoyance. Their computers are often zombied and used to compromise other computers/servers out there.
I think ISPs should also adopt a tough love strategy, whereby if a computer on their network is found to be infected or causing trouble to other hosts, the computer's internet access will be COMPLETELY BLOCKED until the user can demonstrate the following:
1) They've cleaned up their computer, and what steps they took to do that 2) They've installed antivirus and firewall software, and have updated to the latest versions 3) They've applied the newest patches to their OS, browser, email app, etc.
ISPs should also put a limit on the amount of times a customer's computer can be found to be compromised. Any more than that and they're kicked off the network.
But... of course most ISPs won't do this, because the almight dollar is at stake. As long as they're making money, and as long as the damage being caused is to computers outside their own networks, they really don't have an incentive to give a damn.
Here we go again, with the re-interpretation of this book called the bible. It seems religious people can twist, slant, and spin any sentence to fit whatever they wish it to be.
Yeah sure god created the world in 7 days. "Well a day can be a wee, a month, or a million years".
Well geeze pretty soon we'll be finding out that homosexuality and murder are indeed endorced by that book also.
Do you realize how difficult it would be for science to be taught and argued, if at every sentence or assertion, there be a full disclaimer? It'll be like reciting a law document.
Most of these concepts such as "theory" are covered in basic science. Once that's taught, moving forward there really is no need to continually qualify every assertion.
Ok if they want to force these stickers on to science books, would they also happily apply a sticker on every copy of the bible?
"Creationism is a guess based on pure faith, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Come on... who are we fooling here? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what that sticker is insinuating, and exactly who is behind it and what they're trying to say.
By placing a sticker like that right smack in a book like that basically gives the message to students, "hey all this stuff in here, don't take it seriously. it's not really true."
No it's not. It's a wild goose chase, taking correlation and putting causation into it, without PROOF.
> Fact is, evolutions is a theory. It requires > faith, just like Creationism.
Science, unlike creationism, is not biased. It doesn't care which side is right. Conclusions and drawn from empirical data and evidence. creationism, on the other hand, doesn't. It says, you believe it because you must, no proof required, no strenuous process of double checking.
> Where are our thousands of missing links? Don't > show me one malformed set of bones... if > evolution really happened, they should be > everywhere! Where are they?!
Ignorance does not prove fallacy. Do you realize what strict set of conditions must be present for fossils to develop and be preserved?
Creationism isn't a theory, it's no more than a wild guess based on blind faith.
To be a theory, there needs to be empirical, independently-verifiable evidence, that point directly to that theory.
With creationism, all you have are blind and often ludicrous assertions of causation based on nothing more than mere coincidence, or positive assertions based soley on the inability for the other side to prove you 100% wrong.
"You can't prove that I'm not god, therefore I am god!" Nonsesne like that.
How can PageRank be of ANY use in a desktop search? Hmmm let's see, let's rank files higher that others have been reading from Joe's computer. Yeah ok.
There's a lot more to search than just PageRank, and it would be quite foolish to try and apply that to every type of search, as evident in this instance.
What I'm thinking is a different form. The more recent a file has been accessed, the higher up it's placed.
Also, Google search can be smart in trying to figure out what it is you're trying to search for, based on its massive database of google.com site searches.
Michael Moores is a big fat idiot who puts people on the spot and bullys them into doing things for fear of negative propaganda spin. He puts things in a twisted perspective, one that makes the victim look purely evil if they don't comply with his threats. Plus, he is the producer. Cutting and editting to suit his selfish goals wouldn't be beneath him. Just look at Fahrenheit 911 or Bowling for Columbine. His "docu-bullcrap-mentaries" are on the same level of truth as what the Nazi's put out half a century ago, if not worse.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why we have jails... to teach people who aren't "wise" that actions have consequences.
Plus he'll be getting some lubbing in jail. Group hug.
Do you realize how much damage was done to how many people because of this guy? Take some time and reflect on the pain caused to others, because that's what REALLY matters.
So your argument is directed at Bill Gates specificaly and not to all rich people? If so, that is an issue for the courts. Until they can get Bill Gates on something, the money is still his. Those are the rules.
And look at where USSR is today.
For every innovation you can cite coming out of communism, there are many more that came out of capitalism.
So does this mean we should then trust one person who doesn't have any checks and balances but has the resources of a small country and a proven track records of shady business practices? You first.
What do you mean "trust one person"? Bill Gates OWNS his money! You make it sound as if someone crowned him royalty. He EARNED IT it's HIS! He provided a product/service that millions of people found useful, and they paid him for it. It's HIS MONEY! I don't get why some people can't get that through their heads. Why do you or anyone else have claim to what someone else rightfully earned?
Note, please don't bring in the issue of the M$ monopoly. That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument can be applied to any rich person.
It's HIS MONEY! Do you get it? It's HIS MONEY! What makes people like you think you have the right to rob him, or anybody else of what's rightfully theirs?
Another short-sighted and flawed vision. First, it's his money, rightfully so. He earned it fair and square, until a democratic capitalist society.
What you are preaching is NOTHING short of communism.
Second, there's the issue of incentive. Yes capitalism can lead to few individuals with an insane amount of wealth, but what are the upsides? You promote and encourage innovation and competition, which lead to a much better society for ALL.
Communism, which you're preaching, does away with incentives. Look at all of the wonderful innovations of this century. How much of it came from communist countries? People are born selfish. Nothing, I mean NOTHING can ever change that, short of a gun to the head. Communism will never work.
Oh and btw, when you say "democratically represented government", it ain't just you that counts. The people have voted, and the overwhelming majority (at least in the U.S.) support capitalism.
Meanwhile, businesses are making money while you're still out of a job. Who's the idiot?
It's funny how I was just met with some Internap sales people a few months ago. They were bragging about how their network infrastructure was superior to most others, since it intelligently routes traffic to the path of shortest response (not hops).
They even bragged to me how their network uptime SLA is 100%! I mean good god, now I find out this is the SECOND time it's happened (from the livejournal update site)???
I'm glad I didn't go with them...
Incompetent users with infected machines are more than just an annoyance. Their computers are often zombied and used to compromise other computers/servers out there.
I think ISPs should also adopt a tough love strategy, whereby if a computer on their network is found to be infected or causing trouble to other hosts, the computer's internet access will be COMPLETELY BLOCKED until the user can demonstrate the following:
1) They've cleaned up their computer, and what steps they took to do that
2) They've installed antivirus and firewall software, and have updated to the latest versions
3) They've applied the newest patches to their OS, browser, email app, etc.
ISPs should also put a limit on the amount of times a customer's computer can be found to be compromised. Any more than that and they're kicked off the network.
But... of course most ISPs won't do this, because the almight dollar is at stake. As long as they're making money, and as long as the damage being caused is to computers outside their own networks, they really don't have an incentive to give a damn.
A little lesson:
Truth isn't a popularity contest
Here we go again, with the re-interpretation of this book called the bible. It seems religious people can twist, slant, and spin any sentence to fit whatever they wish it to be.
Yeah sure god created the world in 7 days. "Well a day can be a wee, a month, or a million years".
Well geeze pretty soon we'll be finding out that homosexuality and murder are indeed endorced by that book also.
Nonsense.
Of course not... you think these people are out to be fair?
Do you realize how difficult it would be for science to be taught and argued, if at every sentence or assertion, there be a full disclaimer? It'll be like reciting a law document.
Most of these concepts such as "theory" are covered in basic science. Once that's taught, moving forward there really is no need to continually qualify every assertion.
To be fair, ALL science books that have theories in them should have in its first chapter, an explanation of what a theory is, and is not.
Ok if they want to force these stickers on to science books, would they also happily apply a sticker on every copy of the bible?
"Creationism is a guess based on pure faith, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Come on... who are we fooling here? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what that sticker is insinuating, and exactly who is behind it and what they're trying to say.
By placing a sticker like that right smack in a book like that basically gives the message to students, "hey all this stuff in here, don't take it seriously. it's not really true."
> Creationisn is a theory.
No it's not. It's a wild goose chase, taking correlation and putting causation into it, without PROOF.
> Fact is, evolutions is a theory. It requires
> faith, just like Creationism.
Science, unlike creationism, is not biased. It doesn't care which side is right. Conclusions and drawn from empirical data and evidence. creationism, on the other hand, doesn't. It says, you believe it because you must, no proof required, no strenuous process of double checking.
> Where are our thousands of missing links? Don't
> show me one malformed set of bones... if
> evolution really happened, they should be
> everywhere! Where are they?!
Ignorance does not prove fallacy. Do you realize what strict set of conditions must be present for fossils to develop and be preserved?
Who ever said the "THEORY" of evolution was anything more than that, a theory?
Creationism isn't a theory, it's no more than a wild guess based on blind faith.
To be a theory, there needs to be empirical, independently-verifiable evidence, that point directly to that theory.
With creationism, all you have are blind and often ludicrous assertions of causation based on nothing more than mere coincidence, or positive assertions based soley on the inability for the other side to prove you 100% wrong.
"You can't prove that I'm not god, therefore I am god!" Nonsesne like that.
This is compared to all of the Westerners going around finding every lame excuse there is to justify piracy over the internet? Give me a break...
"oh the musicians aren't getting their fair share"
"oh if only they'd put out better records"
"oh if only they lowered their prices"
"oh i'm only trying it out. If it's good I'll buy it"
"oh i'd never buy it in the first place, so me downloading doesn't cost them anything."
Bull$hit.
And what if a single file is larger than 4GBs? Then your tar will break...
You can try bru, but that costs $ and isn't that user friendly.
How can PageRank be of ANY use in a desktop search? Hmmm let's see, let's rank files higher that others have been reading from Joe's computer. Yeah ok.
There's a lot more to search than just PageRank, and it would be quite foolish to try and apply that to every type of search, as evident in this instance.
What I'm thinking is a different form. The more recent a file has been accessed, the higher up it's placed.
Also, Google search can be smart in trying to figure out what it is you're trying to search for, based on its massive database of google.com site searches.
Michael Moores is a big fat idiot who puts people on the spot and bullys them into doing things for fear of negative propaganda spin. He puts things in a twisted perspective, one that makes the victim look purely evil if they don't comply with his threats. Plus, he is the producer. Cutting and editting to suit his selfish goals wouldn't be beneath him. Just look at Fahrenheit 911 or Bowling for Columbine. His "docu-bullcrap-mentaries" are on the same level of truth as what the Nazi's put out half a century ago, if not worse.
Fat people sleep less because they get less sex... you know... that activity you do in bed?
Who am I kidding here. This is slashdot...
Sure pays to NOT read the article eh?