The only ones SCO is suing are THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS.
The ONLY thing EV1 would have to say is: "let's first see their claims to ownership verified by court". Good luck to SCO for waiting until 2005.
As a side note, considering the probability that MS is funding SCO, it is not an uncommon speculation that EV1 got a nice discount from MS by buying an SCO license.
Someone who doesn't go "no no, stop!" isn't a really victim. I use another provider: ServerMatrix - they said they have no plans to sign anything with SCO.
Besides, it should be noted that statistically, the chance is highest to be sued by SCO *after* signing a contract with them.
The main similarity is that both "religions" are essentially false in their core premises and encourage their followers - against all reason and logic - to hold their one set of beliefs as undeniably Truthful and any other as inferior. But there is "hope": as one Mormon told me, non-religious people will go to heaven too, they'll just end up in a lower level.
Someone might respond with: hey dude, you're also claiming that what you say is the only truth and that all else is false! That may of course be so... but AT LEAST I don't go to a place every Sunday to sing about it:-) If there is any belief I would like to hold, it is that ALL people have EQUAL chances of gaining Understanding and Happiness in anything we find hereafter. I find it safe to reject anything else without worry of Punishment. If anything, the people making detailed statements about what will happen in the Afterlife should be worried for Punishment.
You say that Mormons have a variety of opinions. While I'm not going to doubt whether that is true, they do all agree with the core set of opinions which binds them under the same label. Also, it is a little strange to use arguments pertaining to logic and fallacies when you say that you follow a set of beliefs that uses a variety of fallacies, including a major circle-argument.
That said, I don't believe that Darl and Darl's being a Mormon are issues that really need to be connected. Whatever diagnosis one would like to give for his mental condition, I'm quite sure that there are plenty of other people like him out there with other beliefs. I may be of the opinion that his religion is a false one, but it would indeed go a little too far to say that his religion encouraged him to be how he is or that others of his religion are exactly the same.
What I mean with "simplified" is that words such as e.g. "humour" are spelt "humor". That component can be considered a simplification. Whether that simplification makes the language better or not is another discussion. It is indeed implied in my post that such simplification is negative.
What I wanted to point out - and this was understood - was that no single country or continent can realistically claim everything that's "good" or innovative. Not the US and also not Europe. I feel that sometimes people need to be reminded that Europe and the US are long-time allies and friends, rather than enemies. This of course goes both ways.
Ah, "asswipe"? I'll assume for a moment that your rudeness is not representative for all Americans and only stems from a personal deviation and frustration that belongs to you alone.
What you call American English is a derivate and simplified version of British English. The point is: it's silly to claim that all good things come from one single country when that same country "borrows" many things from the rest of the world. Just get over it and things will be fine.
Also, since you've mentioned it. You probably don't only need vacation, you also need to get laid.
Maybe your anti-Europe comment would make more sense if it weren't posed in a European-based language, your country's political system wouldn't be based on systems first thought of in Europe 2500 years ago and you'll stop wanting to drive in cars from European manufacturers.
Obviously, he assumed that a situation without diseases could turn into one with them. That is why it's better to have a trained (or existing) immune system than none at all. He then makes the analogy to the computer world where he says that having security threatened "a little bit" from time to time will result in better security by the time some real attackers start wanting to do damage.
I don't see the problem with understanding his point...?
Very, very few people will not appreciate the fact that he got taken out. What many people have an issue with, however, is feeling that they are lied to about the actual reasons for it. The whole issue was NOT about "let's free an opressed people", but more about "for our own security, we will attack Saddam". In that light, it is strange now it turns out that he was more about big words than an actual threat. Bush and Blair came with the "we must take him out because soon he'll have nukes!" argument many times as a justification for this war. So yes, it's great that Saddam is gone and honestly, I do feel it paves the way for much constructive development, but you'll have to understand that people have a hard time standing behind a cause about which they have been lied to.
No, I'm not saying it's all his fault - I was giving some counter-view to the other post. I don't agree with the simple view of good guys vs. bad guys, when the good guys (not just the US) have shaken the hands of the bad guys more than once.
No matter how much of a bastard Saddam is (nobody disagrees with that), there is still NO evidence that he was in any way responsible for it. If anyone is to blame, it's most likely Saudi Arabia's very lax attitude to OBL and friends. If you want to blame Saddam, blame him for things he did do and don't confuse it with others issues.
You are being black & white again. Like I said: it's *great* that he's caught now, but let us not forget that western countries (and NOT just the US) had supported him along the way in one way or another.
I'm very glad for this chapter being closed, but I am also sad for the role that my country/economy/etc had (indirectly) played in creating the situation. What is "Saddam" in the end..? An old deranged man, the type of which can probably be found in many mental institutions.
I think you're overreacting a bit with your condescending "perpetually negative" and "whining" remarks or at least reacting to someone else than myself. I don't see why being glad about one thing means I need to close my eyes to another. I think it would be really great if in the future, there would be no need to celebrate "victories" over brutal dictators... for the simple reason that I wish for such dictatorships to never exist.
Actually, it's quite a lot more convenient for them: instead of going all the way to the US, they have the chance to kill US soldiers in their own "back yard".
Even if the US nuked Iraq, they'd be better off than living under Saddam... as has been said elsewhere too: gratitude for removal of Saddam still won't mean they enjoy a foreign force in their country, i.e. the enemy of one's enemy is not always one's friend.
Yes, many of those are the ones who rose up against him believing that the US would support them. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Bush senior decided it was better to leave Saddam in place.
There are a few more sides to this story.... it's great that Saddam is caught, but the reality is not black/white.
Yes, but the thing that many people hold against US policy is that the US supported this terrible person in the past, even after his ethics were more than clear. It's more a matter of cleaning up the mess that western countries left behind than behind. While we can rightfully be very glad that this mess is in the process of being cleaned up, let us not forget our own roles in that mess.
If you have a reputation of lying then whenever you make strong claims, people will more easily be tempted to think you're lying, even in the few cases that you're not. That's why most people are very careful not to get bad reputations or get caught lying because they know it will have an effect on how they and what they say will be perceived in the future.
I use a monolithic kernel on one of of my servers too after it got cracked 1.5 years ago. I also try to minimize the number of users on my machine and additionally, use the/etc/hosts.deny and/etc/hosts.allow files to really restrict where people can login from.
My precautions did not, however, stop a cracker from using my friend's account by logging in from his own (cracked/sniffed) machine. Fortunately, the person was entirely unable to gain root access and all I had to do was to kill the bot he had running on my machine.
Well, I have two points here. First, it all sounds a bit like in China with their "anti-subversion" laws that don't need to get used too much generally, but COULD be used if necessary if someone is deemed troublesome.
Second, how do you decide who is a "real" criminal? As far as I know, the law provides guidelines on what is and what isn't criminal behaviour. What you seem to be proposing is a meta-law that says which laws are and which laws aren't applicable. The problem then becomes: who determines these (unwritten?) meta-laws? Where can I read what they are?
When laws say that you're wrong, what can you point at to say you're actually right?
Condescending scientists & their science is beneficial to noone. Someone may argue that that isn't science. Well, if you can take out the bad from science, then it's reasonable for us to take out the bad in religion.
The way I see it, being condescending is bad no matter which set of opinions that person has -- even if it matches some of my own opinions. Being condescending is certainly not a bad attribute unique to science.
If your point is that people (in general) shouldn't behave like jerks, then I fully agree with you even if I may not agree with you in some other areas.
Well, I suppose esp. in the North-West Europeans aren't *that* religious. I've been in various parts of Europe, but I have to say I haven't felt much of a "religious pressure". Occasionally there'll be some wacko who tries to judge others, but that's it. Religion doesn't seem to be very intermixed with politics.. that's what scares me about the US: very powerful political figures who make relatively strong religious statements.
When I was a lot younger, my father used to work as a civil engineer in Saudi Arabia, so I actually spent 2-3 years there as a kid... I find that (some regions of) the US has some eerie traces of resemblance to Saudi Arabia in terms of religious fanaticism. Our prime minister (in The Netherlands) is religious too, but I feel it's more in the sense of tolerance than evangilism.
Interestingly, I think there is a universal human need to feel whatever they are doing is The Right Thing and they are in the perfect position to judge opposing views, regardless of what their or other people's views are. Religion can give some misguided individuals a nice "excuse" to act in that manner, but they will as you say operate in conflict with their own religion.
From what I know about different main-stream religions... many (if not most) people subscribing to any such religion are violating it in almost blasphemous ways while deluding themselves that they are doing OK by following some silly rituals.
Science and religion are totally different things. I still don't see how it would be a crutch for "most", when in fact everyone benefits from scientific achievement. Fanatical evangilism on the other hand is beneficial to no one.
Slashdot Mirror
They're more likely to promote him :-)
Please slap yourself with a cluestick.
The only ones SCO is suing are THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS.
The ONLY thing EV1 would have to say is: "let's first see their claims to ownership verified by court". Good luck to SCO for waiting until 2005.
As a side note, considering the probability that MS is funding SCO, it is not an uncommon speculation that EV1 got a nice discount from MS by buying an SCO license.
Just.. stop going for the FUD please.
Someone who doesn't go "no no, stop!" isn't a really victim. I use another provider: ServerMatrix - they said they have no plans to sign anything with SCO.
Besides, it should be noted that statistically, the chance is highest to be sued by SCO *after* signing a contract with them.
The main similarity is that both "religions" are essentially false in their core premises and encourage their followers - against all reason and logic - to hold their one set of beliefs as undeniably Truthful and any other as inferior. But there is "hope": as one Mormon told me, non-religious people will go to heaven too, they'll just end up in a lower level.
:-) If there is any belief I would like to hold, it is that ALL people have EQUAL chances of gaining Understanding and Happiness in anything we find hereafter. I find it safe to reject anything else without worry of Punishment. If anything, the people making detailed statements about what will happen in the Afterlife should be worried for Punishment.
Someone might respond with: hey dude, you're also claiming that what you say is the only truth and that all else is false! That may of course be so... but AT LEAST I don't go to a place every Sunday to sing about it
You say that Mormons have a variety of opinions. While I'm not going to doubt whether that is true, they do all agree with the core set of opinions which binds them under the same label. Also, it is a little strange to use arguments pertaining to logic and fallacies when you say that you follow a set of beliefs that uses a variety of fallacies, including a major circle-argument.
That said, I don't believe that Darl and Darl's being a Mormon are issues that really need to be connected. Whatever diagnosis one would like to give for his mental condition, I'm quite sure that there are plenty of other people like him out there with other beliefs. I may be of the opinion that his religion is a false one, but it would indeed go a little too far to say that his religion encouraged him to be how he is or that others of his religion are exactly the same.
Didn't Microsoft allegedly buy licenses from them?
Hehe, okay. That's the spirit :-)
What I mean with "simplified" is that words such as e.g. "humour" are spelt "humor". That component can be considered a simplification. Whether that simplification makes the language better or not is another discussion. It is indeed implied in my post that such simplification is negative.
What I wanted to point out - and this was understood - was that no single country or continent can realistically claim everything that's "good" or innovative. Not the US and also not Europe. I feel that sometimes people need to be reminded that Europe and the US are long-time allies and friends, rather than enemies. This of course goes both ways.
Ah, "asswipe"? I'll assume for a moment that your rudeness is not representative for all Americans and only stems from a personal deviation and frustration that belongs to you alone.
What you call American English is a derivate and simplified version of British English. The point is: it's silly to claim that all good things come from one single country when that same country "borrows" many things from the rest of the world. Just get over it and things will be fine.
Also, since you've mentioned it. You probably don't only need vacation, you also need to get laid.
Maybe your anti-Europe comment would make more sense if it weren't posed in a European-based language, your country's political system wouldn't be based on systems first thought of in Europe 2500 years ago and you'll stop wanting to drive in cars from European manufacturers.
Obviously, he assumed that a situation without diseases could turn into one with them. That is why it's better to have a trained (or existing) immune system than none at all. He then makes the analogy to the computer world where he says that having security threatened "a little bit" from time to time will result in better security by the time some real attackers start wanting to do damage.
I don't see the problem with understanding his point...?
Very, very few people will not appreciate the fact that he got taken out. What many people have an issue with, however, is feeling that they are lied to about the actual reasons for it. The whole issue was NOT about "let's free an opressed people", but more about "for our own security, we will attack Saddam". In that light, it is strange now it turns out that he was more about big words than an actual threat. Bush and Blair came with the "we must take him out because soon he'll have nukes!" argument many times as a justification for this war. So yes, it's great that Saddam is gone and honestly, I do feel it paves the way for much constructive development, but you'll have to understand that people have a hard time standing behind a cause about which they have been lied to.
No, I'm not saying it's all his fault - I was giving some counter-view to the other post. I don't agree with the simple view of good guys vs. bad guys, when the good guys (not just the US) have shaken the hands of the bad guys more than once.
No matter how much of a bastard Saddam is (nobody disagrees with that), there is still NO evidence that he was in any way responsible for it. If anyone is to blame, it's most likely Saudi Arabia's very lax attitude to OBL and friends. If you want to blame Saddam, blame him for things he did do and don't confuse it with others issues.
You are being black & white again. Like I said: it's *great* that he's caught now, but let us not forget that western countries (and NOT just the US) had supported him along the way in one way or another.
I'm very glad for this chapter being closed, but I am also sad for the role that my country/economy/etc had (indirectly) played in creating the situation. What is "Saddam" in the end..? An old deranged man, the type of which can probably be found in many mental institutions.
I think you're overreacting a bit with your condescending "perpetually negative" and "whining" remarks or at least reacting to someone else than myself. I don't see why being glad about one thing means I need to close my eyes to another. I think it would be really great if in the future, there would be no need to celebrate "victories" over brutal dictators... for the simple reason that I wish for such dictatorships to never exist.
Actually, it's quite a lot more convenient for them: instead of going all the way to the US, they have the chance to kill US soldiers in their own "back yard".
Even if the US nuked Iraq, they'd be better off than living under Saddam... as has been said elsewhere too: gratitude for removal of Saddam still won't mean they enjoy a foreign force in their country, i.e. the enemy of one's enemy is not always one's friend.
Yes, many of those are the ones who rose up against him believing that the US would support them. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Bush senior decided it was better to leave Saddam in place.
There are a few more sides to this story.... it's great that Saddam is caught, but the reality is not black/white.
Yes, but the thing that many people hold against US policy is that the US supported this terrible person in the past, even after his ethics were more than clear. It's more a matter of cleaning up the mess that western countries left behind than behind. While we can rightfully be very glad that this mess is in the process of being cleaned up, let us not forget our own roles in that mess.
Look here for some links...
More or less the same of course applies to That Other Guy who was also well supported by the West when his agenda appeared beneficial.
If you have a reputation of lying then whenever you make strong claims, people will more easily be tempted to think you're lying, even in the few cases that you're not. That's why most people are very careful not to get bad reputations or get caught lying because they know it will have an effect on how they and what they say will be perceived in the future.
I use a monolithic kernel on one of of my servers too after it got cracked 1.5 years ago. I also try to minimize the number of users on my machine and additionally, use the /etc/hosts.deny and /etc/hosts.allow files to really restrict where people can login from.
My precautions did not, however, stop a cracker from using my friend's account by logging in from his own (cracked/sniffed) machine. Fortunately, the person was entirely unable to gain root access and all I had to do was to kill the bot he had running on my machine.
Well, I have two points here. First, it all sounds a bit like in China with their "anti-subversion" laws that don't need to get used too much generally, but COULD be used if necessary if someone is deemed troublesome.
Second, how do you decide who is a "real" criminal? As far as I know, the law provides guidelines on what is and what isn't criminal behaviour. What you seem to be proposing is a meta-law that says which laws are and which laws aren't applicable. The problem then becomes: who determines these (unwritten?) meta-laws? Where can I read what they are?
When laws say that you're wrong, what can you point at to say you're actually right?
And your language is very heavily based upon the British langauge ;-)
Condescending scientists & their science is beneficial to noone. Someone may argue that that isn't science. Well, if you can take out the bad from science, then it's reasonable for us to take out the bad in religion.
The way I see it, being condescending is bad no matter which set of opinions that person has -- even if it matches some of my own opinions. Being condescending is certainly not a bad attribute unique to science.
If your point is that people (in general) shouldn't behave like jerks, then I fully agree with you even if I may not agree with you in some other areas.
Well, I suppose esp. in the North-West Europeans aren't *that* religious. I've been in various parts of Europe, but I have to say I haven't felt much of a "religious pressure". Occasionally there'll be some wacko who tries to judge others, but that's it. Religion doesn't seem to be very intermixed with politics.. that's what scares me about the US: very powerful political figures who make relatively strong religious statements.
When I was a lot younger, my father used to work as a civil engineer in Saudi Arabia, so I actually spent 2-3 years there as a kid... I find that (some regions of) the US has some eerie traces of resemblance to Saudi Arabia in terms of religious fanaticism. Our prime minister (in The Netherlands) is religious too, but I feel it's more in the sense of tolerance than evangilism.
Interestingly, I think there is a universal human need to feel whatever they are doing is The Right Thing and they are in the perfect position to judge opposing views, regardless of what their or other people's views are. Religion can give some misguided individuals a nice "excuse" to act in that manner, but they will as you say operate in conflict with their own religion.
From what I know about different main-stream religions... many (if not most) people subscribing to any such religion are violating it in almost blasphemous ways while deluding themselves that they are doing OK by following some silly rituals.
Science and religion are totally different things. I still don't see how it would be a crutch for "most", when in fact everyone benefits from scientific achievement. Fanatical evangilism on the other hand is beneficial to no one.