I am no way suggesting that all Muslims believe as these fundamentalists do. This is a relatively small (compared to the number of Muslims worldwide) but very vocal and active group of people I am talking about here.
"I think the different governments should spend more money on trying to understand the causes of terrorism"
I know I'm going to start a holy war here (quite literally, too!) but we already know the cause here is radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Now before you all jump down my throats, let's look at the facts.
Radical Islamic fundamentalists believe that anyone who does not worship as they do are infidels, and therefore are legitimate targets of Jihad. A fundamentalist does not distinguish between "civilian" and "military" targets; they see only "enemy".
Say all that you want about American involvement in the Middle East, especially in Israel. It all comes down to the basic belief by these fundamentalists that those who are different from themselves should either convert or die.
I'm not going to pretend to know how to end this destructive mentality. I will submit, however, that the problem has been sufficiently identified.
The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting.
There is a HUGE difference between tolerating certain views, and endorsing them.
To my way of thinking, the existence of such material on my property (not to mention the distribution thereof) constitutes an endorsement of said offensive material by me.
Now if people do want to be a party to that, then fine, but make it opt-in (just like the SPAM argument, right?). You shouldn't have to constantly evaluate what others may have put on your machine. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
"No, it's the ultimate form of freedom for the publisher."
And does that mean the free speech right of the publisher supercedes that of the person who owns the computer? Assuming I vehemently oppose child porn (and I do), is my right to express that taken away when some publisher decides that I should host their child porn collection?
So then you'd be OK with people posting pictures of children having sex in your front yard, because that's what ultimate free speech is all about, right?
Now that's pretty creepy. Wouldn't a FREEnet want people to have the freedom to determine what they do and do not want on their computers? Giving up that control doesn't sound very free to me.
I just so happen to work for the Department of the Navy, and have since before the current administration.
And even before I started working on the base, you know what just about every workstation was? Micron P3 550MHz boxes. You know what OS was running on them? Microsoft Windows NT. Every one of them.
So don't try to tell me that large-scale government computer contracts are new and unique to the Bush administration. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
"The ugly thing is that Microsoft provides the worst of all web services,
That's your opinion. Next.
yet seems to be favored by the current administration."
Show me how previous administrations favored other software vendors over Microsoft. It's not like the federal government suddenly switched from Linux to Microsoft when Bush took office.
It makes no sense whatsoever for Microsoft to be getting these contracts when IBM, Red Hat, Debian, Caldera (yes even brain dead SCO), HP, Sun and countless other good US firms can do the job better and cheaper.
Again, that's your opinion. The people making the decision apparently disagree with your assessment. Of course you could defend your assertions with wild accusations of political back-scratching and the like, but when all is said and done, you still haven't produced any facts.
Hardly a fair question, and I'll use your car safety requirement example to demonstrate.
Back before there were seatbelt laws, many cars simply did not have them. So once those laws were put into place, would it be fair to expect older cars to pass the seatbelt test?
Now if this minimum security law you suggest were to become a reality, it would be Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that future operating systems pass the security test. But you cannot hold them to a standard that does not currently exist.
"Or worse, a law that allows Ashcroft and Poindexter to get even further into my computer."
Please cut the FUD. Ashcroft & Co. can't get into your computer, nor do they really care to.
With that out of the way, please explain to me how an anti-spam law would give the Justice Department permission to break into the secure (you are behind a firewall, aren't you?) computer systems of Whoever-The-Hell-They-Want-To(tm)?
But I thought it was the USA that wanted to track all of its citizens movents/transactions! I thought Socialist Europe was the world's new bastion of freedom!
I know I'm burning some karma here, but seriously, folks, for every dubious project the US undertakes, I hear about five in Europe.
"The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet."
Isn't this what has been said about Windows for quite some time?
Every time an emerging system/technology that could potentially endanger privacy rights here in the U.S., someone steps up and mentions that such a system/technology is already in use in Great Britain.
However, for some reason, the U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World. Why is that?
"and all those four and half million personal computers doing SETI@home CPU cycles."
Perhaps I'm too demanding in my definition of "best" but I'd submit that any project, no matter how ambitious, would have to produce something before earning this kind of distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
I am no way suggesting that all Muslims believe as these fundamentalists do. This is a relatively small (compared to the number of Muslims worldwide) but very vocal and active group of people I am talking about here.
I know I'm going to start a holy war here (quite literally, too!) but we already know the cause here is radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Now before you all jump down my throats, let's look at the facts.
Radical Islamic fundamentalists believe that anyone who does not worship as they do are infidels, and therefore are legitimate targets of Jihad. A fundamentalist does not distinguish between "civilian" and "military" targets; they see only "enemy".
Say all that you want about American involvement in the Middle East, especially in Israel. It all comes down to the basic belief by these fundamentalists that those who are different from themselves should either convert or die.
I'm not going to pretend to know how to end this destructive mentality. I will submit, however, that the problem has been sufficiently identified.
The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting.
There is a HUGE difference between tolerating certain views, and endorsing them.
To my way of thinking, the existence of such material on my property (not to mention the distribution thereof) constitutes an endorsement of said offensive material by me.
Now if people do want to be a party to that, then fine, but make it opt-in (just like the SPAM argument, right?). You shouldn't have to constantly evaluate what others may have put on your machine. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
And does that mean the free speech right of the publisher supercedes that of the person who owns the computer? Assuming I vehemently oppose child porn (and I do), is my right to express that taken away when some publisher decides that I should host their child porn collection?
So then you'd be OK with people posting pictures of children having sex in your front yard, because that's what ultimate free speech is all about, right?
Now that's pretty creepy. Wouldn't a FREEnet want people to have the freedom to determine what they do and do not want on their computers? Giving up that control doesn't sound very free to me.
I just so happen to work for the Department of the Navy, and have since before the current administration.
And even before I started working on the base, you know what just about every workstation was? Micron P3 550MHz boxes. You know what OS was running on them? Microsoft Windows NT. Every one of them.
So don't try to tell me that large-scale government computer contracts are new and unique to the Bush administration. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
A similar report concluded that 76% of all statists are made up.
That's your opinion. Next.
yet seems to be favored by the current administration."
Show me how previous administrations favored other software vendors over Microsoft. It's not like the federal government suddenly switched from Linux to Microsoft when Bush took office.
It makes no sense whatsoever for Microsoft to be getting these contracts when IBM, Red Hat, Debian, Caldera (yes even brain dead SCO), HP, Sun and countless other good US firms can do the job better and cheaper.
Again, that's your opinion. The people making the decision apparently disagree with your assessment. Of course you could defend your assertions with wild accusations of political back-scratching and the like, but when all is said and done, you still haven't produced any facts.
If you RTFA (from yesterday), you would have seen that the Mozilla Foundation is receiving 10 coders, not the remaining 450 Netscape coders.
Want to see another familiar image on NASA's site? Check out my sig!
Hardly a fair question, and I'll use your car safety requirement example to demonstrate.
Back before there were seatbelt laws, many cars simply did not have them. So once those laws were put into place, would it be fair to expect older cars to pass the seatbelt test?
Now if this minimum security law you suggest were to become a reality, it would be Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that future operating systems pass the security test. But you cannot hold them to a standard that does not currently exist.
Please cut the FUD. Ashcroft & Co. can't get into your computer, nor do they really care to.
With that out of the way, please explain to me how an anti-spam law would give the Justice Department permission to break into the secure (you are behind a firewall, aren't you?) computer systems of Whoever-The-Hell-They-Want-To(tm)?
I hate to burn karma on something so silly, but really folks, you sound uneducated when you fail to observe simple grammar rules.
3DLabs is a single entity, and therefore the sentence should read "3DLabs has released"
That grates on me as much as "boxen" and "virii".
Probably more than you give them credit for.
I'd also be willing to bet my left nut that they know more about business than you do. I'd say that qualifies them to address the subject.
I know I'm burning some karma here, but seriously, folks, for every dubious project the US undertakes, I hear about five in Europe.
Isn't this what has been said about Windows for quite some time?
...would be how much would they have saved (relative to their old mainframes, of course) if they had decided on a Microsoft-based solution?
This one is the "Second Edition", with a rating of "AA++", whereas the one you refer to is the "2nd Ed.", with a rating of "9".
As foul/vile/offensive/disgusting/etc. that is, it's most definately on-topic!
However, for some reason, the U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World. Why is that?
These credit card numbers weren't 'stolen', they were LIBERATED!
Perhaps I'm too demanding in my definition of "best" but I'd submit that any project, no matter how ambitious, would have to produce something before earning this kind of distinction.
And if I were rich, I wouldn't have to rob a bank.
So does the fact that I'm not rich justify my robbing a bank?
I know I'm probably guilty of feeding a +2 troll, and honestly I'm ashamed for even having responded to such a retarded statement.