Do these jackasses in the government not have anything better to do then come up with stupid meaningless laws and declarations... do something useful or get the fuck out you lazy bastards.
What do you mean by that? Poorly thought out name-calling rants that don't actually address anything the original poster wrote is considered the criteria for being "owned".
If PopeRatzo had written of you: You skin headed mother fucker. You terse verbiage indicates that your mom whored herself out to rich old, fat, ugly men in exchange for education (your punctuation is wonderful) and yet you discredit her by using racist slave terms like "owned". You little backstabbing bastard.
I doubt you'd consider that a valid response to your response.
Do you realize the highest birthrates in America are among Hispanics and Evangelical Christians?
Please cite your source.
Are you an anthropologist? Did barneyfoo strike a nerve. If anything his statements attack an anthropologists ability to properly recreate a true history of what has occurred in the past. It has nothing to do with race or politics. Maybe you should keep taking your meds... it seems you've slipped into some sort of delusion where there is a skin head and evil Young Republican around every corner.
Dumb people have more children than smart people, especially when there is a natural abundance of food and shelter and intelligence offers no real reproductive benefit.
That is a relatively modern trend. One, many previous cultures valued children and gained both productive and prestige benefit for large families. Two, effective contraceptives are relatively modern inventions. Three, the social and economic mobility of those who are "not dumb" is also a relatively modern trend. In dictatorial and feudal societies in which education and wealth is controlled by a few intelligence is less likely to be rewarded.
If we look back at our cities in 5000 years... I agree with you here and think you're making a great point. We place a high level of certainty on conclusion drawn from a limited set of data, and as you pointed out the conclusions are really rather useless anyway.
RMS isn't talking about licensing. He's talking about information in general. These quotes and concepts are frequently applied to DRM, restrictive licensing, closed source, etc. Open sourcers fanbois like big sweeping statements like this when the suit their needs... it's ok to violate someone else's license if you don't like it... but if they violate your or don't attribute you as the source then that's not ok. Smells like bullshit to me.
implicit in this philosophy is that the original author of a work is credited.
Bullshit. Why are you placing an artificial constraint like attribution on a piece of information? The creator of the work is just a piece of meta data that has no direct impact on the content of the work.
I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses. - Thus spoke RMS, may he be blessed
So, a recording of a delightful piece of music that many people obviously enjoy would fall under this statement./.ers what's the issue here? So she (or her husband) said it was hers... big deal... everyone got some enjoyment from the piece.
Not only is this law insane, it's horribly written. They define something like "school board", a fairly common concept that the common person should be able to understand and yet fail to define what a "social networking site" actually is. All laws, whether the intention is perceived as being good or bad need to be written in a clear and unambiguous way. Under this lack of a definition a person could interpret social networking sites to mean everything from MySpace and Facebook to CareerBuilder, Slashdot, or Blogger.
It'd be sort of funny if after the apocolypse (which is sort of funny when you think about it) if nobody could get to the seeds, and then about 10k years later the seeds escaped but due to evolution and all that good stuff (accelerated by the post-apocolyse end stuff) the plants whiped out the existing plants which killed off the animals which couldn't digest the new plants and didn't have the old plants to feed on.
Good to see some university professors still have integrity.
Yes, and it's also good to see that they can understand both sides of the argument and not get their heads so far up their asses they sound like a complete nutjob (RMS... cough... RMS)
Whats wrong with you guys? Where are the tin-foil hat jokes?
I guess you're not up on the latest research... here's a summary in common language.
It's the science man! By making the joke and acknowledging the hat you weaken its mental reflection capabilities. Tin foil hats actually work (queue the non-believing corporate servants) by combining the radiated electromagnetic energy from your brain with the conductive qualities of the tinfoil. Over time, usually three to six months, the tinfoil's electromagnetic field begins to take on the qualities of the brain waves its been receiving, this build-up of energy results in a perfect mask for your particular brain patterns... true mental reflection. To take a term from pipe smoking... the hat is seasoned. By thinking about the hat and concentrating your mind on it existence you begin to create a specific energy pattern that counteracts the seasoned fields you've already created. The hat will still work, but there will be small holes in the energy field that are weaker and that will allow external monitor devices to measure your brain activity. The results are still fuzzy, but given secret technology the government may have now or a large enough computer (Blue gene based system would be fine) a good psychoanalysis team could read you like a book.
Best practices Although there is some debate in the psycho-obfuscation and privacy communities about the shape of the hat, the real issue is mental blindness to the existence of the hat. Most people can't forget that they have a large pointy tinfoil hat on their head, but they can forget that they've placed a layer of tinfoil with a small (1cm diameter or less is best) criss cross pattern of wires inside of their baseball cap.
It goes without saying that you should never share a tinfoil hat with someone else. The combination of brain patterns will weaken the overall effectiveness of the hat and will make you susceptible to brain scanning and false thought recognition (caused by latent electromagentic patterns from previous wearer).
I was expecting to read about a router that could compete with Cisco's hardware based on performance, not features. It looks like an interesting project for smaller shops or routing applications that aren't business critical... maybe more of a competitor to low end routers and all-in-one appliances, not enterprise routers. It doesn't look like it has any stateful failover capabilities.
I sort of agree... but I think I'd rather just give the government less money and make them pick the lowest cost supplier that can meet the business requirements and take less of our money so we can choose to spend it where we want. Give the government less, keep more of your freedom.
I'm not surprised by the City of Boston's response. Some douchebag overreacted to these things... the only real choice the city had was to act incredibly outraged and play the victim, or admit that 5 years after 9/11 they still can't fucking tell the difference between a terrorist attack and a stupid advertising gimmick. Of course they're going to act outraged and divert the blame from the real problem... their lack of preparedness and common sense.
From the article, Dezenhall said "Media messaging is not the same as intellectual debate".
He is right. In a society with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people... stating that the common form of communication is not logical, rational, or about truth is damning. Unless people start thinking we're fucked.
If you believe that the expansion of high-speed Internet services to end-users was a mistake, how exactly can you economically justify any further rapid development of the Internet infrastructure given meddling government legislation?
So we should allow the highest bidder to choke off the bandwidth from their less wealthy competitors? Honestly, can someone explain to me how this would be a good idea?
Bandwidth is available. If the one company pays a premium to buy up one ISPs bandwidth another ISP will have an opportunity to expand its customer base by selling its bandwidth at a price lower then the premium.
Ah, could be... I guess my point was that someone who believed in non-violence wholeheartedly would probably be better then someone who sort of believed in using violence to rob me, all things being equal.
Sorry, Bob, you're just not a team player. It says so right here on these lab results!"
Actually...
Sorry Bob... you're such a fucking puss that you're going to be walking around asking how everyone's day is and trying to get money for charity runs and girl scout cookies. We need a ruthless son-of-a-bitch whose going to get shit done. You understand our predicament don't you Bob?
Slashdot Mirror
Do these jackasses in the government not have anything better to do then come up with stupid meaningless laws and declarations... do something useful or get the fuck out you lazy bastards.
Um... Minitrue states very clearly that its experts cannot be wrong. How dare you question them.
Damn, owned!
What do you mean by that? Poorly thought out name-calling rants that don't actually address anything the original poster wrote is considered the criteria for being "owned".
If PopeRatzo had written of you:
You skin headed mother fucker. You terse verbiage indicates that your mom whored herself out to rich old, fat, ugly men in exchange for education (your punctuation is wonderful) and yet you discredit her by using racist slave terms like "owned". You little backstabbing bastard.
I doubt you'd consider that a valid response to your response.
Do you realize the highest birthrates in America are among Hispanics and Evangelical Christians?
Please cite your source.
Are you an anthropologist? Did barneyfoo strike a nerve. If anything his statements attack an anthropologists ability to properly recreate a true history of what has occurred in the past. It has nothing to do with race or politics. Maybe you should keep taking your meds... it seems you've slipped into some sort of delusion where there is a skin head and evil Young Republican around every corner.
Dumb people have more children than smart people, especially when there is a natural abundance of food and shelter and intelligence offers no real reproductive benefit.
That is a relatively modern trend. One, many previous cultures valued children and gained both productive and prestige benefit for large families. Two, effective contraceptives are relatively modern inventions. Three, the social and economic mobility of those who are "not dumb" is also a relatively modern trend. In dictatorial and feudal societies in which education and wealth is controlled by a few intelligence is less likely to be rewarded.
If we look back at our cities in 5000 years...
I agree with you here and think you're making a great point. We place a high level of certainty on conclusion drawn from a limited set of data, and as you pointed out the conclusions are really rather useless anyway.
RMS isn't talking about licensing. He's talking about information in general. These quotes and concepts are frequently applied to DRM, restrictive licensing, closed source, etc. Open sourcers fanbois like big sweeping statements like this when the suit their needs... it's ok to violate someone else's license if you don't like it... but if they violate your or don't attribute you as the source then that's not ok. Smells like bullshit to me.
For a minute there I thought that laptop might be following BSD and Gentoo down the path to oblivion.
implicit in this philosophy is that the original author of a work is credited.
Bullshit. Why are you placing an artificial constraint like attribution on a piece of information? The creator of the work is just a piece of meta data that has no direct impact on the content of the work.
I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses. - Thus spoke RMS, may he be blessed
/.ers what's the issue here? So she (or her husband) said it was hers... big deal... everyone got some enjoyment from the piece.
So, a recording of a delightful piece of music that many people obviously enjoy would fall under this statement.
Not only is this law insane, it's horribly written. They define something like "school board", a fairly common concept that the common person should be able to understand and yet fail to define what a "social networking site" actually is. All laws, whether the intention is perceived as being good or bad need to be written in a clear and unambiguous way. Under this lack of a definition a person could interpret social networking sites to mean everything from MySpace and Facebook to CareerBuilder, Slashdot, or Blogger.
It'd be sort of funny if after the apocolypse (which is sort of funny when you think about it) if nobody could get to the seeds, and then about 10k years later the seeds escaped but due to evolution and all that good stuff (accelerated by the post-apocolyse end stuff) the plants whiped out the existing plants which killed off the animals which couldn't digest the new plants and didn't have the old plants to feed on.
What a hoot.
Good to see some university professors still have integrity.
Yes, and it's also good to see that they can understand both sides of the argument and not get their heads so far up their asses they sound like a complete nutjob (RMS... cough... RMS)
Whats wrong with you guys? Where are the tin-foil hat jokes?
I guess you're not up on the latest research... here's a summary in common language.
It's the science man!
By making the joke and acknowledging the hat you weaken its mental reflection capabilities. Tin foil hats actually work (queue the non-believing corporate servants) by combining the radiated electromagnetic energy from your brain with the conductive qualities of the tinfoil. Over time, usually three to six months, the tinfoil's electromagnetic field begins to take on the qualities of the brain waves its been receiving, this build-up of energy results in a perfect mask for your particular brain patterns... true mental reflection. To take a term from pipe smoking... the hat is seasoned. By thinking about the hat and concentrating your mind on it existence you begin to create a specific energy pattern that counteracts the seasoned fields you've already created. The hat will still work, but there will be small holes in the energy field that are weaker and that will allow external monitor devices to measure your brain activity. The results are still fuzzy, but given secret technology the government may have now or a large enough computer (Blue gene based system would be fine) a good psychoanalysis team could read you like a book.
Best practices
Although there is some debate in the psycho-obfuscation and privacy communities about the shape of the hat, the real issue is mental blindness to the existence of the hat. Most people can't forget that they have a large pointy tinfoil hat on their head, but they can forget that they've placed a layer of tinfoil with a small (1cm diameter or less is best) criss cross pattern of wires inside of their baseball cap.
It goes without saying that you should never share a tinfoil hat with someone else. The combination of brain patterns will weaken the overall effectiveness of the hat and will make you susceptible to brain scanning and false thought recognition (caused by latent electromagentic patterns from previous wearer).
I was expecting to read about a router that could compete with Cisco's hardware based on performance, not features. It looks like an interesting project for smaller shops or routing applications that aren't business critical... maybe more of a competitor to low end routers and all-in-one appliances, not enterprise routers. It doesn't look like it has any stateful failover capabilities.
I sort of agree... but I think I'd rather just give the government less money and make them pick the lowest cost supplier that can meet the business requirements and take less of our money so we can choose to spend it where we want. Give the government less, keep more of your freedom.
Forget space... think about the massive Beowulf cluster we could have built.... OMGWTFBBQ!?!?!
I'm not surprised by the City of Boston's response. Some douchebag overreacted to these things... the only real choice the city had was to act incredibly outraged and play the victim, or admit that 5 years after 9/11 they still can't fucking tell the difference between a terrorist attack and a stupid advertising gimmick. Of course they're going to act outraged and divert the blame from the real problem... their lack of preparedness and common sense.
From the article, Dezenhall said "Media messaging is not the same as intellectual debate".
He is right. In a society with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people... stating that the common form of communication is not logical, rational, or about truth is damning. Unless people start thinking we're fucked.
If you believe that the expansion of high-speed Internet services to end-users was a mistake, how exactly can you economically justify any further rapid development of the Internet infrastructure given meddling government legislation?
So we should allow the highest bidder to choke off the bandwidth from their less wealthy competitors? Honestly, can someone explain to me how this would be a good idea?
Bandwidth is available. If the one company pays a premium to buy up one ISPs bandwidth another ISP will have an opportunity to expand its customer base by selling its bandwidth at a price lower then the premium.
Have your PC encased in a block of amber so your descendants can marvel at how primitive our coding was.
No, the sentient machines will marvel out how primitive their ancestors were.
Thank you... that would be better example... I mean except for the pollution and using up our fossil fuels an all :)
Ah, could be... I guess my point was that someone who believed in non-violence wholeheartedly would probably be better then someone who sort of believed in using violence to rob me, all things being equal.
Sorry, Bob, you're just not a team player. It says so right here on these lab results!"
Actually...
Sorry Bob... you're such a fucking puss that you're going to be walking around asking how everyone's day is and trying to get money for charity runs and girl scout cookies. We need a ruthless son-of-a-bitch whose going to get shit done. You understand our predicament don't you Bob?
Does this mean that we are one step closer to being able to put a chip in someone's brain to make them more altruistic?
Only if they're willing to volunteer in order to improve the lot of future generations.