As a loyal subject of Her Majesty I know of a Royal Navy. Really? I didn't think there was enough Royals to man even a single of the larger boats. Do they wear their crowns and stuff while on duty? I'd think that would be a hazard in the engine room.
I'm not even sure what that lispilly haskellish funkshunional coding style is supposed to be, but based on your example, yes I believe I can write unreadable, unmaintainable code in C. I call it job security.
Bull. I, for one, care. I like.net development a great deal, and watch the mono project with a great bit of interest, because if it succeeds it'll mean that I can, if necessary, develop what I believe to be cross-platform apps with my preferred toolbox. Or hell, even just develop apps for my own use, with the satisfaction of believing that any interested Linux users will also be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor.
And I'd bet money that I'm far from alone in believing this.
I'm not sure I follow your point. He saved money by picking and rejecting Windows of picking and keeping Linux. The Windows route requires manual install and setup of Linux. The Linux route does not. Neither route involves running or doing anything on windows. The problems of windows are awful but completely avoided in both cases.
It wasn't like "The Sixth Sense", but "No Way Out" in 87 was a little surprising to me. I'm not a big fan of Costner, so I'll credit Hackman for it being a good movie.
Hes clearly forgoten the 1st rule of dealing with trolls, do not talk about the trolls. Seriously dont feed them, dont talk to them & dont talk about them and silently implement some measures to get rid of them.
Dont IP-ban, just IP-"oops all your posts go missing"
Delay all non-logged in posts, even trolls arnt going sit around for 3 hours to get a response. *snip*
So, these are the trolls you are talking about, right?
I never used Napster. None the less, I remember Metallica and Lars in particular being mouthpieces for the record industry in its earliest attempts to halt progress in network protocols. They let themselves be used to protect the greed of the RIAA while demonstrating a complete lack of understand of what they were talking about and the damage they were doing. Beyond all doubt, they proved themselves to be selfish greedy imbeciles.
Back in 2002, after reading of EMI's abuse of a customer who could not play a CD he purchased due to copy protection that corrupted it, I sworn off any RIAA products free or otherwise. Metallica would have further to go than anyone else in the industry to redeem themselves in my view. They would have to come forward and admit they were incorrect idiots about about Napster and their handling of it. They would have to repeat this in a great many forums. Most of all they would have to demonstrate that they understand how wrong they were and why. Quite simply, I don't believe them capable and for several reasons.
I'm afraid I don't care enough to read the Dawkins article or read all the review of Stein's movie nor do I care enough to watch the movie. (But yes, I'm skimming/., shut up.) I had to chuckle at this. If this is really Dawkins' views about Ben Stein's movie, that Stein is Lying for Jesus, it's just great. Isn't Stein Jewish?
However, let's not lose sight of the point here, which is the double standard. We have some pretty absurd requests of other countries too, and if we expect them to go along with our absurd requests, we're going to have to go along with theirs.
I had to chuckle when I read this one. Are you actually arguing that two wrongs make a right?
Is your problem really that the US doesn't give in to the absurd demands from other nations or is it that other nations do? I'm sure there are nations in the middle east that would like to make even more absurd demands of us all. Honestly, if you want to argue a point make sure you think out where it leads.
Is it unusual in your experience for, say, a corporate IT department to destroy hard drives by policy?
If we were to have found former Whitehouse computers that had been decommissioned without destroying the drives, you find people here calling them idiots for that. I'm not questioning the problems of not archiving data correctly, but this is sounding like a question designed to ensure that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So back to the question, is it unusual to have corporate policies to destroy drives when you are done with them? We have centers dedicated to it. We also have a 'document retention' policy dedicated to making sure documents do not get retained a second longer than necessary unless required by a court. I'd hardly expect less from the Whitehouse.
'You think there are more facts and better facts on your side than on the other side. The very act of giving them equal weight seems like bias. Like inappropriate evenhandedness.'
That is an excellent and clear description of the problems we are seeing and explains perfectly the problems in the political system. Wait a sec... Weren't we just talking about a bunch of Apple wonks?
I've always felt that UNIX's slogan ought to be "UNIX, it's more flexible than you are..." And based on that, the open source variants could effectively add "... and we're more flexible than that."
Re:Does he realize what he'd have to do on corrupt
on
Lessig For Congress?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Congratulations. You've invented a new power broker! How long do you think it would take for the position to get politicized? Think about it. You would could ask anyone anything and they have to answer. You could gain access to political plans. Leak info at inconvenient times. Get phone records for calls to non-spouses. Make it look like someone isn't being completely honest and you've effectively kicked them out of federal government and politics. Not that any of this is bad because no-one should have anything to hide. And of course we can count on the IG not to be corrupt. It's just everyone else in Washington who is corrupt. Boy, I bet McCarthy would have loved this job.
What - you thought you were Microsofts' customer? You're a consumer, not a customer. And you'll consume whatever they feed you, until you get sick of it and either die or switch.
I think the correct term is addict. Perhaps the slang junkie.
Boy. Where to start. First, your skin and blood cells serve a purpose. And they die. That's all they will ever be. That's natural and good. A fertilized egg on the other hand begin a process that will cause it to be come a new individual, unique and separate from the people who contributed to its existance if it is allowed to. It could become an Einstein, a dictator or nobody of consequence. In any of these cases, it is human. I don't know how one can fail to see that difference unless one simply chooses to do so.
My argument is not based on pseudoscience. I'll admit, it's not based on science at all. No more than the argument that murder for fun and profit is wrong. That is not the realm of science. That does not make the argument wrong however. Frankly, it comes down to morality, one's value for human life and when one accepts another as being human. If you feel I over value human life or if you feel there is some other arbitrary point at which one becomes human enough to deserve to be valued as human then I could see how you could disagree with me. It doesn't mean I accept for a second that you are right. I do know that there is no sound, scientific argument one way or the other. Why you feel science (or pseudoscience) is involve is truly beyond me.
As far as equivocation goes, I can look at my first grade son and see he is incredibly intelligent and good natured. I do tend it tie that to his obvious potential. If he chooses and if he finds a not-too-unlucky path in life, he he could become so much and I'm sure I could never predict what. Or he may just become a man with family of his own and that would be wonderful too. He could find a field to pursue that brings him great joy. I don't know what he will or even can become or do, but I'm thrilled by the potential and curiosity. I don't even know how to begin to explain it. I see all of that in him now. It was there two years ago when he was his younger sister's age just as it is in her now. Her interests are different and her possibilities seem very different and yet just as wonderfully exciting. And all of that potential is in their youngest sister who hasn't yet seen full two years of this world. I couldn't possibly begin to guess where life will take her. I do equate a person, especially a young person with all of that potential. It's powerful. It's wonderful. It was there in every person at one point. Where did that potential begin? I don't know. But I think it is important and valuable enough to consider equating that first single human cell, that fertilized egg, with something more than one of the dead flecks of skin I lost while fixing the dryer today. Those cells could never have become something separately aware of this world and what is here for us. Not like you and I are.
As far as your references to creationists, holocaust deniers, my assumed failures and immorality, they seemed nonsensical and I'm afraid you were to vague for me if you wanted them addressed. In my life I make plenty of mistakes. They are dealt with best by admitting them, addressing their causes as needed and moving on. I don't know if there is some mistake here you think needs addressed. Actually, the only thing you address is your assumption that I used some sort of pseudoscience in my reasoning or that I'm am wrong in my logic. You fail to say in any detail how I'm wrong or how you are right. I see nothing to really own up to here. I still feel a human life is more valuable than someone's lifestyle and I don't see a reason for choosing to delay to recognize someone as human until some arbitrary point after conception.
You've got it exactly backwards, you despicable liar. I've never seen a "pro-lifer" actually base their arguments on ethics or science....
Then you aren't paying attention. However, so you can't make the above claim again, abortion is wrong (as far as I'm concerned) because that thing they're killing is human, like you and I. It's a life and death decision and it should be treated like one. There are times these days when it feels like it's being treated like a life style choice. "Having this child will interrupt my career/social life." It's being justified by dehumanizing the aborted. I've even seen abortion equated with picking lint out of one's navel.
It seems reasonable to me that what most makes us human is our minds, and thus once a fetus has a human mind, it should be considered human. That has to be the most mindless thing I've heard in ages. Quick! Say something smart before someone goes all post birth abortion on you!
That's what I figured. I'm just wondering if this could be considered to be Apple getting involved for legal purposes. Kind of how ISPs aren't responsible for want goes over their wires because they don't monitor. If AT&T starts filtering their lines for copyright violations or other such things, they could lose that protection. I'm wondering if this could be construed as Apple getting into the business of policing reverse engineering on MacOS. Probably not, but I was curious if any armchair lawyers have any ideas of how this could work against them.
If I make a third party app that and Apple allows my app to be traced and reverse engineered when they don't allow it for their own apps, does that mean they've chosen to assist in the reverse engineering of my app? If tracing is bad for their app, why is it ok with mine? Just asking? Could a court ask them?
I live in Minnesota and there are days in the summer here that get hot enough that my machine will hose up due to heat. We ended up having to get A/C because the baby was getting terrible sores under the diaper. Creams and powders were not enough. Our choice was to install AC or or let the baby crawl (and later run) around naked. I can't imagine that California wouldn't have days like that.
I guess I'm for letting the Californians deal with their problem how ever they want, but it seems to me that they need to allow the power companies build more plants or live with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not even sure what that lispilly haskellish funkshunional coding style is supposed to be, but based on your example, yes I believe I can write unreadable, unmaintainable code in C. I call it job security.
And I'd bet money that I'm far from alone in believing this.
There. Fixed that for you.I'm not sure I follow your point. He saved money by picking and rejecting Windows of picking and keeping Linux. The Windows route requires manual install and setup of Linux. The Linux route does not. Neither route involves running or doing anything on windows. The problems of windows are awful but completely avoided in both cases.
It wasn't like "The Sixth Sense", but "No Way Out" in 87 was a little surprising to me. I'm not a big fan of Costner, so I'll credit Hackman for it being a good movie.
Finally, we will get an application to correctly implement rfc 3514 for "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header".
So, these are the trolls you are talking about, right?
I never used Napster. None the less, I remember Metallica and Lars in particular being mouthpieces for the record industry in its earliest attempts to halt progress in network protocols. They let themselves be used to protect the greed of the RIAA while demonstrating a complete lack of understand of what they were talking about and the damage they were doing. Beyond all doubt, they proved themselves to be selfish greedy imbeciles.
Back in 2002, after reading of EMI's abuse of a customer who could not play a CD he purchased due to copy protection that corrupted it, I sworn off any RIAA products free or otherwise. Metallica would have further to go than anyone else in the industry to redeem themselves in my view. They would have to come forward and admit they were incorrect idiots about about Napster and their handling of it. They would have to repeat this in a great many forums. Most of all they would have to demonstrate that they understand how wrong they were and why. Quite simply, I don't believe them capable and for several reasons.
I'm afraid I don't care enough to read the Dawkins article or read all the review of Stein's movie nor do I care enough to watch the movie. (But yes, I'm skimming /., shut up.) I had to chuckle at this. If this is really Dawkins' views about Ben Stein's movie, that Stein is Lying for Jesus, it's just great. Isn't Stein Jewish?
I had to chuckle when I read this one. Are you actually arguing that two wrongs make a right?
Is your problem really that the US doesn't give in to the absurd demands from other nations or is it that other nations do? I'm sure there are nations in the middle east that would like to make even more absurd demands of us all. Honestly, if you want to argue a point make sure you think out where it leads.
If we were to have found former Whitehouse computers that had been decommissioned without destroying the drives, you find people here calling them idiots for that. I'm not questioning the problems of not archiving data correctly, but this is sounding like a question designed to ensure that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So back to the question, is it unusual to have corporate policies to destroy drives when you are done with them? We have centers dedicated to it. We also have a 'document retention' policy dedicated to making sure documents do not get retained a second longer than necessary unless required by a court. I'd hardly expect less from the Whitehouse.
That is an excellent and clear description of the problems we are seeing and explains perfectly the problems in the political system. Wait a sec... Weren't we just talking about a bunch of Apple wonks?
Bruce, I'm glad to see you are in the running for the OSI board and I have already signed the petition. OSI couldn't find a better person for the job.
I've always felt that UNIX's slogan ought to be "UNIX, it's more flexible than you are..." And based on that, the open source variants could effectively add "... and we're more flexible than that."
Congratulations. You've invented a new power broker! How long do you think it would take for the position to get politicized? Think about it. You would could ask anyone anything and they have to answer. You could gain access to political plans. Leak info at inconvenient times. Get phone records for calls to non-spouses. Make it look like someone isn't being completely honest and you've effectively kicked them out of federal government and politics. Not that any of this is bad because no-one should have anything to hide. And of course we can count on the IG not to be corrupt. It's just everyone else in Washington who is corrupt. Boy, I bet McCarthy would have loved this job.
I think the correct term is addict. Perhaps the slang junkie.
Boy. Where to start. First, your skin and blood cells serve a purpose. And they die. That's all they will ever be. That's natural and good. A fertilized egg on the other hand begin a process that will cause it to be come a new individual, unique and separate from the people who contributed to its existance if it is allowed to. It could become an Einstein, a dictator or nobody of consequence. In any of these cases, it is human. I don't know how one can fail to see that difference unless one simply chooses to do so.
My argument is not based on pseudoscience. I'll admit, it's not based on science at all. No more than the argument that murder for fun and profit is wrong. That is not the realm of science. That does not make the argument wrong however. Frankly, it comes down to morality, one's value for human life and when one accepts another as being human. If you feel I over value human life or if you feel there is some other arbitrary point at which one becomes human enough to deserve to be valued as human then I could see how you could disagree with me. It doesn't mean I accept for a second that you are right. I do know that there is no sound, scientific argument one way or the other. Why you feel science (or pseudoscience) is involve is truly beyond me.
As far as equivocation goes, I can look at my first grade son and see he is incredibly intelligent and good natured. I do tend it tie that to his obvious potential. If he chooses and if he finds a not-too-unlucky path in life, he he could become so much and I'm sure I could never predict what. Or he may just become a man with family of his own and that would be wonderful too. He could find a field to pursue that brings him great joy. I don't know what he will or even can become or do, but I'm thrilled by the potential and curiosity. I don't even know how to begin to explain it. I see all of that in him now. It was there two years ago when he was his younger sister's age just as it is in her now. Her interests are different and her possibilities seem very different and yet just as wonderfully exciting. And all of that potential is in their youngest sister who hasn't yet seen full two years of this world. I couldn't possibly begin to guess where life will take her. I do equate a person, especially a young person with all of that potential. It's powerful. It's wonderful. It was there in every person at one point. Where did that potential begin? I don't know. But I think it is important and valuable enough to consider equating that first single human cell, that fertilized egg, with something more than one of the dead flecks of skin I lost while fixing the dryer today. Those cells could never have become something separately aware of this world and what is here for us. Not like you and I are.
As far as your references to creationists, holocaust deniers, my assumed failures and immorality, they seemed nonsensical and I'm afraid you were to vague for me if you wanted them addressed. In my life I make plenty of mistakes. They are dealt with best by admitting them, addressing their causes as needed and moving on. I don't know if there is some mistake here you think needs addressed. Actually, the only thing you address is your assumption that I used some sort of pseudoscience in my reasoning or that I'm am wrong in my logic. You fail to say in any detail how I'm wrong or how you are right. I see nothing to really own up to here. I still feel a human life is more valuable than someone's lifestyle and I don't see a reason for choosing to delay to recognize someone as human until some arbitrary point after conception.
This happened a while back with the book "Lisp in Small Pieces". This lisp community was thrilled and then shocked.
http://xach.livejournal.com/133661.html
http://jonphilpott.blogspot.com/2007/08/lisp-on-amazonca.html
http://constantly.at/blog/2007/08/14/i-see-no-reason-to-do-further-business-with-you/
Then you aren't paying attention. However, so you can't make the above claim again, abortion is wrong (as far as I'm concerned) because that thing they're killing is human, like you and I. It's a life and death decision and it should be treated like one. There are times these days when it feels like it's being treated like a life style choice. "Having this child will interrupt my career/social life." It's being justified by dehumanizing the aborted. I've even seen abortion equated with picking lint out of one's navel.
That is despicable friend.
But it, helps, make the, text more, readable, for, people like, Christopher, Walken.
Quit tormenting the youngsters.
That's what I figured. I'm just wondering if this could be considered to be Apple getting involved for legal purposes. Kind of how ISPs aren't responsible for want goes over their wires because they don't monitor. If AT&T starts filtering their lines for copyright violations or other such things, they could lose that protection. I'm wondering if this could be construed as Apple getting into the business of policing reverse engineering on MacOS. Probably not, but I was curious if any armchair lawyers have any ideas of how this could work against them.
If I make a third party app that and Apple allows my app to be traced and reverse engineered when they don't allow it for their own apps, does that mean they've chosen to assist in the reverse engineering of my app? If tracing is bad for their app, why is it ok with mine? Just asking? Could a court ask them?
I guess I'm for letting the Californians deal with their problem how ever they want, but it seems to me that they need to allow the power companies build more plants or live with it.