ummm...if there really is a god and you're condemned to eternal torture, i doubt you'll be able to take satisfaction in anything...
If ReformedExCon can look forwards to being satisfied whilst not existing any more then I can hypothesise moments of satisfaction amongst the horrors of torture everlasting.
I suppose that if there is no God when I die and that my belief in Him was for naught, that I can at least take satisfaction in how I lived my life trying to do my best to be patient and kind to other people and generally doing my best to live rightly.
Same here, if there really is a god and it decides me to condemn me to eternal torture for not having believed in its existence then I'll be able to take satisfaction in how I lived my life trying to do my best to be patient and kind to other people and generally doing my best to live rightly.
There were only two percentages given. One wa ssoftware developers using open source components in their software in spring of 2001, and another was of a more recent survey of the same thing. There were no values given for anything else.
It is also designed to run on Intel hardware and it does not have this particular insidious feature.
Why would I care whether it runs on Intel hardware?
I care whether it runs on my existing hardware. I care whether it runs on hardware available from multiple competing suppliers. I don't have any particular fetish for Intel. I just don't get what's supposed to be different between 'runs only on Apple machines, incorporating processors from IBM' and 'runs only on Apple machines, incorporating processors from Intel'.
Why care? I honestly want to understand what the point is.
but I'm at a loss for what mobile phones and car navigation systems need it for...
Okay, imagine that you've replaced the driver who's supposed to be collecting James Bond. Don't you think that a navigation display that looks to him as if you're driving towards the British embassy but actually shows you taking him towards his death would be pretty useful?
That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
Your concern was that "bombers" implied "legitimacy". If you didn't mean legitimacy to imply a position on right vs. wrong then I've misunderstood you. However, I can see no reason to object to the word "bombers". I also think its absurd that you feel able to accuse someone else of political correctness when it's you that's complaining that their terminology doesn't carry the message that you want it to - how is what you are asking for not 'political correctness'?
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
Ideally the BBC should report the known facts. They report that the explosions occured. They report that people died. They report that such-and-such a group has claimed repsonsibility. They say that Government ministers have made a statement. And so on.
We listen. Maybe we listen to other sources too. Having heard the reports, WE draw conclusions.
Listening to the reports on this subject I don't think it's hard to make judgments about the people involved, but that isn't a reason for the news reporters to do it for us.
The BBC often falls short of those standards, they often do inject their own values into their reporting (values I mainly agree with), but that doen't mean that objective reporting that gives the viewer the information he or she needs to form their own judgments is a bad thing.
Though when they explain their purpose "This, in turn, makes it easy for users to recognize genuine museum activity on the Internet". you have to wonder whether they're serious or not.
To me it seems sort of like having a.ftp domain. Or are.mobi pages only meant to contain ring tones and such? Otherwise, what is the reason for it?
ICANN carried out extensive research and discovered that there's a lot of money being spent on mobile phones, ring tones, phone scams, cell phone stuff in general. So they thought they'd see if they could get some of it.
Not that ICANN are only interested in money. It's more the power and sense of importance that goes with the money that really appeals to them.
AS long as they don't breach copyright by actually printing substantial chunks of the work, I don't understand why the courts should care whether neespapers print "spoilers". I guess I'm missing something in this whole story. What is the legal basis for the injunctions?
The purpetrators of this attrocity are the faceless, and I would suggest faithless (because no one could truthfully commit such acts in the name of any God) terrorists
I agree with everything else that you say in your post but this bit was just arbitrarily offensive. Trying to claim that anyone who commits attocities like this is by definition an atheist is unbelievably bigoted. Christians, Moslems and atheists and other groups all are capable of inflciting horrors on others and history is full of many examples from all of them.
It doesn't matter who invades who, it's just the way it is. It's part of their religion. They could blow the US to smithereenies, and that wouldn't stop them. Not until the ENTIRE WORLD worships Allah.
Just when you thought it was safe to believe whatever you please, Christianity II : Islam.
You forget that for a concept of a united Ireland to exists there are TWO dis-united halves.
You forget that the world consists of MANY disunited parts. We should all be ruled b a Sino-Indian alliance because... well, we just should because there's more of them so they should be allowed to tell us what to do.
London has never seen a terrorist attack with casualties on anything like this scale.
There are two realistic ways of looking at it: the horror of people being murdered, to which one person, five, ten or fifty makes no qualitative difference, or the actual numbers impact in which fifty people is a drop in the ocean. The second way is cold, sure, in which case focus on the first by all means but don't pretend that fifty instead of five is earth shattering.
I realise that another three or four attacks and they could be equalling annual road deaths in London and I agree that thats a terrible thing but in itself that doesn't justify the hype. The horror of people being murdered is the same either way. The effect on everyday life for most people is negligible either way. If you're close to one of the fifty then that's different but the same goes if you were close to one of the [less than fifty] too.
Besides, I'm sure we both know that this waas being hyped in advance of the event. Instead of 'starving them of the oxygen of publicity' the new approach seems to be for government to fan the flames.
Terrorists tend to attack targets at which they will have a high probability of success.
Which is exactly the point. The government are making this a higher profile target by implementing highly publicised but actually non-existent security measures. Have you used the tube? Do you really think this will add any security at all? The volumes of passengers, the number of stations, the ease of transfer between lines makes the whole thing absurd.
Disagree. What they're doing is creating a target.
Nobody who's thought about it, in Government or out of it, thinks that the tube can be secured. Making high profile security measures just makes a tempting target for terrorists. The more secured it was claimed to be, the more publicity the attacks bring.
Of course, that helps the governments message of how scared we should all be, so they're happy.
On the Underground? At the right time of day you'll be worrying more about the risk of being crushed by the bodies around you than thinking about who's touching whom.
I think the real question is "why does the USA want the DNS root servers" (most of them, anyway)?
Apparently there was an unwritten understanding that ICANN would be able to come up with at least one sensible new TLD before being given anything more important to do.
Free software has nothing to do with freedom of software, in any sense, be it speech or beer(btw, last I checked, I paid money for beer). Free Software is about Freedom for the User, not the software.
Yes. Just like free speech is freedom for the person speaking. Even free beer means that the drinker doesn't pay, not that the beer doesn't have to. Apply the same to free love, free markets and probably thousands of other "frees", it's always the participants that exercise freedom. Why would you expect free software to be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
ummm...if there really is a god and you're condemned to eternal torture, i doubt you'll be able to take satisfaction in anything...
If ReformedExCon can look forwards to being satisfied whilst not existing any more then I can hypothesise moments of satisfaction amongst the horrors of torture everlasting.
just the nature of the contract he signed when he took a job with cisco.
Ah, it didn't mention in the story that he'd worked at Cisco. Have you got a link to any more details on that? Thanks.
I suppose that if there is no God when I die and that my belief in Him was for naught, that I can at least take satisfaction in how I lived my life trying to do my best to be patient and kind to other people and generally doing my best to live rightly.
Same here, if there really is a god and it decides me to condemn me to eternal torture for not having believed in its existence then I'll be able to take satisfaction in how I lived my life trying to do my best to be patient and kind to other people and generally doing my best to live rightly.
There were only two percentages given. One wa ssoftware developers using open source components in their software in spring of 2001, and another was of a more recent survey of the same thing. There were no values given for anything else.
It's not about having or using open sourced applications. It's about incorporating open sourced modules in their own projects.
Go back to math class. A number mod 666 can never equal 666
Okay, but that test only considers whether it's literally 666. The value may have been obfuscated.
It is also designed to run on Intel hardware and it does not have this particular insidious feature.
Why would I care whether it runs on Intel hardware?
I care whether it runs on my existing hardware. I care whether it runs on hardware available from multiple competing suppliers. I don't have any particular fetish for Intel. I just don't get what's supposed to be different between 'runs only on Apple machines, incorporating processors from IBM' and 'runs only on Apple machines, incorporating processors from Intel'.
Why care? I honestly want to understand what the point is.
but I'm at a loss for what mobile phones and car navigation systems need it for...
Okay, imagine that you've replaced the driver who's supposed to be collecting James Bond. Don't you think that a navigation display that looks to him as if you're driving towards the British embassy but actually shows you taking him towards his death would be pretty useful?
the article was about how many legal downloads there were
That's what the headline said, but when the article started it was actually talking about 'paid' downloads.
That says nothing of whether the terrorist acts were right or wrong.
Your concern was that "bombers" implied "legitimacy". If you didn't mean legitimacy to imply a position on right vs. wrong then I've misunderstood you. However, I can see no reason to object to the word "bombers". I also think its absurd that you feel able to accuse someone else of political correctness when it's you that's complaining that their terminology doesn't carry the message that you want it to - how is what you are asking for not 'political correctness'?
The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.
It doesn't carry an air of legitimacy, merely of neutrality. It's up to us - me, you, other viewers - to apply our values to the circumstances.
Ideally the BBC should report the known facts. They report that the explosions occured. They report that people died. They report that such-and-such a group has claimed repsonsibility. They say that Government ministers have made a statement. And so on.
We listen. Maybe we listen to other sources too. Having heard the reports, WE draw conclusions.
Listening to the reports on this subject I don't think it's hard to make judgments about the people involved, but that isn't a reason for the news reporters to do it for us.
The BBC often falls short of those standards, they often do inject their own values into their reporting (values I mainly agree with), but that doen't mean that objective reporting that gives the viewer the information he or she needs to form their own judgments is a bad thing.
I know .mususeum died (did it ever launch??)
.museum lives!
Though when they explain their purpose "This, in turn, makes it easy for users to recognize genuine museum activity on the Internet". you have to wonder whether they're serious or not.
To me it seems sort of like having a .ftp domain. Or are .mobi pages only meant to contain ring tones and such? Otherwise, what is the reason for it?
ICANN carried out extensive research and discovered that there's a lot of money being spent on mobile phones, ring tones, phone scams, cell phone stuff in general. So they thought they'd see if they could get some of it.
Not that ICANN are only interested in money. It's more the power and sense of importance that goes with the money that really appeals to them.
AS long as they don't breach copyright by actually printing substantial chunks of the work, I don't understand why the courts should care whether neespapers print "spoilers". I guess I'm missing something in this whole story. What is the legal basis for the injunctions?
The purpetrators of this attrocity are the faceless, and I would suggest faithless (because no one could truthfully commit such acts in the name of any God) terrorists
I agree with everything else that you say in your post but this bit was just arbitrarily offensive. Trying to claim that anyone who commits attocities like this is by definition an atheist is unbelievably bigoted. Christians, Moslems and atheists and other groups all are capable of inflciting horrors on others and history is full of many examples from all of them.
It doesn't matter who invades who, it's just the way it is. It's part of their religion. They could blow the US to smithereenies, and that wouldn't stop them. Not until the ENTIRE WORLD worships Allah.
Just when you thought it was safe to believe whatever you please, Christianity II : Islam.
You forget that for a concept of a united Ireland to exists there are TWO dis-united halves.
You forget that the world consists of MANY disunited parts. We should all be ruled b a Sino-Indian alliance because... well, we just should because there's more of them so they should be allowed to tell us what to do.
London has never seen a terrorist attack with casualties on anything like this scale.
There are two realistic ways of looking at it: the horror of people being murdered, to which one person, five, ten or fifty makes no qualitative difference, or the actual numbers impact in which fifty people is a drop in the ocean. The second way is cold, sure, in which case focus on the first by all means but don't pretend that fifty instead of five is earth shattering.
I realise that another three or four attacks and they could be equalling annual road deaths in London and I agree that thats a terrible thing but in itself that doesn't justify the hype. The horror of people being murdered is the same either way. The effect on everyday life for most people is negligible either way. If you're close to one of the fifty then that's different but the same goes if you were close to one of the [less than fifty] too.
Besides, I'm sure we both know that this waas being hyped in advance of the event. Instead of 'starving them of the oxygen of publicity' the new approach seems to be for government to fan the flames.
Terrorists tend to attack targets at which they will have a high probability of success.
Which is exactly the point. The government are making this a higher profile target by implementing highly publicised but actually non-existent security measures. Have you used the tube? Do you really think this will add any security at all? The volumes of passengers, the number of stations, the ease of transfer between lines makes the whole thing absurd.
Disagree. What they're doing is creating a target.
Nobody who's thought about it, in Government or out of it, thinks that the tube can be secured. Making high profile security measures just makes a tempting target for terrorists. The more secured it was claimed to be, the more publicity the attacks bring.
Of course, that helps the governments message of how scared we should all be, so they're happy.
The terror is taking over our lives, Now all over the world.
Bomb attacks in London aren't new. The difference is that now the government are hyping the fear.
What you can't do, in either case, is touch.
On the Underground? At the right time of day you'll be worrying more about the risk of being crushed by the bodies around you than thinking about who's touching whom.
I think the real question is "why does the USA want the DNS root servers" (most of them, anyway)?
Apparently there was an unwritten understanding that ICANN would be able to come up with at least one sensible new TLD before being given anything more important to do.
That's the second time in the last couple of days the US have decided to hold onto DNS. It's starting to seem like a habit.
Free software has nothing to do with freedom of software, in any sense, be it speech or beer(btw, last I checked, I paid money for beer). Free Software is about Freedom for the User, not the software.
Yes. Just like free speech is freedom for the person speaking. Even free beer means that the drinker doesn't pay, not that the beer doesn't have to. Apply the same to free love, free markets and probably thousands of other "frees", it's always the participants that exercise freedom. Why would you expect free software to be any different?