I know, just like Linux executables and shared libraries use the ELF format; but the article claims that ELF is "sorta like Microsoft DLLs"; even though EXEs and DLLs both use the PE architecture, making a direct comparison between ELF and DLL files would be trying to assert that ELF is some sort of method for dynamically sharing external libraries, and not an executable format. A good analogy would be saying that the Microsoft PE format is "sorta like Linux shared libraries" - it just doesn't make any sense. Also MacOS doesn't use ELF, but most Unix OSes such as Solaris, IRIX, etc use ELF and ELF64.
There's some weird errors in the article, especially since it comes from a Linux magazine:
"ELF is sorta like Microsoft's DLLs and was developed by AT&T's Unix System Labs as part of the Unix Application Binary Interface (ABI) before Unix was sold to Novell in 1993."
ELF is not like Microsoft's DLLs. ELF is a binary executable format, and is comparable to Microsoft's PE executable format (am i correct on that?) used in their EXE files. Unix shared libraries are comparable to Windows DLLs. Also, that's the first time I've ever seen the word "sorta" in an article. hmmm....
They also don't mention that almost every Unix OS uses the ELF format (as far as I've seen).
"The Free Software Foundation is also the creator of the GPL, the viral license that makes Linux so provocative."
Is this a statement from the Linuxworld author or SCO? SCO claimed the GPL was a "viral" license, but if that is coming from Linuxworld then something's wrong.
"It also says the journaled file system (JFS) module from later versions of AIX, which SCO believes may derive from the JFS Unix, is in Linux 2.6. - MOG"
what's "the JFS Unix"?
Anyway, SCO is going insane and should hopefully die soon. But the author of that article needs to learn more about Linux first lol (especially since it's a Linux magazine).
Finally SCO is showing their literal insanity over this issue, and letting everyone see their crazy neurotic hysteria. Next they'll probably blame Linus for stealing the idea of an "operating system", claiming that it is part of their IP, or some crazy patent. They need to be shot.
Some problems with that statement. Socialism was described by Marx as the "abolition of private property". Also Socialism relies on a centralized distribution of resources (usually from a government), and also somewhat on the collective ownership on the products of production (not just the production itself). For example, a socialized health care system involves taxing the population at a very high amount (thus resulting in 'collective ownership'), and then having a political power use the money/resources and distribute the services among the population; the quality ends up always being extremely low since the government tries to use as little money as possible to expand its use - usually people with 'connections' (interventionist position) get the good health care, while everyone else gets crap. If open-source was socialist, there would need to be a centralized power that would need to 'own' the developed product, and for a forced collective development to be enacted (similar to slave labor). There would also be no personal ownership of code created (which personal ownership is protected by the GPL).
Open source resembles a free market Libertarian philosophy the most, due to its decentralized, private property-based (GPL), open-ended infrastructure.
"There is also a negative reaction from many rational people to the heavy-weight evangelistic nature of Christianity."
There's also a very negative reaction from many rational Christians to the heavy-weight scientific community, which claims that science and scientific measurements are the answer to everything. Science has enormous limitations, and you can view my other large post, on my explanation of this:
Previous Article
"Rational people usually want evidence to back up claims, evidence which is often not offered by evangelism. This can put people at odds against an idealogy."
Christianity doesn't need to provide evidence to the close-mided, if the evidence comes from supernatural faith and communication, something which you would not be able to comprehend.
"Would you dislike it if people of other religions came thumping you with their religious beliefs using threats of punishment and slander?"
That's what the evolutionist community has been doing to me my whole life.
"...Would it make you uncomfortable?"
No, it just reaffirms my faith, and shows the zealous and dogmatic nature of science taken to the extreme of idolization.
"Also, many active religions today (key point to remember with your claim--many ancient religions of noteworthy attention are no longer practiced) use fear and coersion to recruit new members. Fear of eternal suffering or punishment is commen. Religions often do this at great financial benefit to themselves."
Actually it's much different than that, but what you explained is exactly what the evolution community uses to draw people to it. There is enormous financial benefit to the evolution community from this too. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt are huge sellers in the scientific community today. I would go on, but i need some sleep; also take note that JRR Tolkien was a Christian, and good friends with CS Lewis.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
"This argument keeps getting killed everytime a rational/scientific explanation comes about for such things as the weather, evolution, gravity, etc."
Ok, I've got a scientific challenge for you. Try to prove your own existence; prove that your life is not just a figment of your imagination. I'm serious. Considering that you wouldn't be able to use anything in your life to prove your existence (since they would be a component of what you are trying to prove), it would become impossible; you would have to be physically outside your own existence to even be able to begin. You would need to know the information of the absolute to be able to answer the question; of which no human has even the slightest ability to comprehend.
Now where am I going with all of this crap? I'm trying to show you that science is not the anwer to everything in life. Imagine a person stranded in space, with just pitch blackness in their field of vision (and nothing around them to relate their position/velocity with). Could the person use scientific methods to determine their position in space, or their velocity? Science uses all of these measurements in relative terms, requiring another object as a base of measurement. In this space scenario, science is useless.
Also, evidence presented as factual could be flawed. Consider the modern judicial systems. "Evidence" could be created to actually show the opposite of what really happened; we see it a lot nowadays. Clinging to science as your purpose in life would be similar to clinging to judicial evidence, no matter how flawed, as your meaning in life and your source of "absolute" truth.
So I have seen science become a religion in itself. You'll probably laugh hysterically at that statement. But think about it. Compare it to a religion. As you study it more and more, you'll find that science has many zealous and dogmatic followers, preaching the Gospel of Science if you will. Placing human knowledge into a god-like position, and worshipping it (not in a stereotypical worshipping method like in a church, but literally raising it up above everything else in life, and making it king over your life).
I'm a highly religious and extremely educated person. I've read works by Darwin and others, and could even lay out the extremely racist elements of Darwin and his theory of evolution, and even how those same racist elements prevail into modern culture today. Even the simple stuff on how Darwin divides the human race into sub species, and claims that all blacks should be exterminated from the planet because they are hindering the developmental progress of the white "master race". Hitler even used the works of Darwin and Nietzsche for his ideological positions on a master race, and the Jews being the hinderance.
So, I've made many evolutionists turn bright red with even the minor information I know. When studies are done, the dark truth comes out. As for me, I don't need to prove my own existence, because I have something called "faith", and also a supernatural relationship with a God, something that you would not even be able to comprehend.
Science is very useful, but is not the answer to everything.
I don't really understand how that site (and organization) can call themselves "Christians" when their own theology heavily contradicts Biblical standards (and is also almost completely dogmatic; sort of like a "reinvention" of Christianity). They seem to be some kind of commercialistic pseudo-christian cult (i'm completely open to other people's views on this). I wouldn't be suprised if their Virtual Church application was full of spyware or ads.
To show an example of how they have barely any foundation of all, look at their criticism of the Left Behind book series. They condemn it on the basis of their own opinion, without using any Biblical verses as a foundation (that is a very stupid thing to do in Christian circles such as mine, and is also the signs of a possible pseudochristian cult). To compare that in the Linux world (so more people can understand what I'm trying to say), it's almost exactly like SCO bashing the Linux community and the GPL. SCO provides absolutely no foundations for their arguments (which would be actual code, etc), and just rants on and on with their own opinions, while the Linux community just asks "prove it". That's what I'd like to ask the guy who wrote that column - "prove it, and site other documents and Biblical verses entirely to prove your point". It seems like people have become far too opinionated, to the point where they start ignoring almost everything factual, and also reject any form of correction.
Then they blash The Passion movie as being "the most violent movie ever seen", even though movies that came out around the same time such as the remakes Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead were far more violent in my opinion (I saw both, didn't like 'Massacre' and only liked the original 'Dawn', since the new one was sloppily done). Even movies preceding Passion were far more violent. Luckily the exaggeration of the violence has helped the Passion gain even larger audiences.
Nothing can top their "Biblical Curse Generator", which is absolutely sickening. What moron would just take random sentences from something (completely removing the context), and using them as authentic single-context "quotes"? If someone did that to the Islamic Quran nowadays, they'd be lynched.
Hmmm... they support laws for making it a criminal offense to "incite" religious hatred. I guess they don't like freedom of speech; especially since that law would also curb their own freedom of speech too. What if something they said was considered "religious hatred" and their isp connection was pulled? There goes their "virtual" church...
This means I can patent the idea of "A small company named SCO crashing and burning"!! yay. I'll enjoy the tiny $1000/sec license fee revenue coming from Darl...
"The United Nations is not and cannot be a world government. It's not a government at all. It lacks the legitimate authority to govern anything."
That is correct, but one thing you need to think about is that the UN could create or establish a global government out of the consolidation of power it currently has. So, a governmental political entity could be spawn off at the request of the members of the UN (dictators, etc) and would be a unifying global governance body. This is very possible, and the idea should not be taken lightly. It reminds me of the book Brave New World; and also that immense power is in the hands of a small few.
Is a "global government" forming? Yes. Do I approve of it? Not in your wildest dreams.
There's studies that have even showed "global warming" on Mars, where there's no human interaction. Being a skeptical environmentalist is very good, since you keep an open mind, instead of following the "pop-culture" dogma.
>but I highly doubt that a UN-controlled Internet >administrative body would have been to stupidly >designed that it would impose restrictions on the >'Net just because some UN member applied pressure.
That's what the German people thought of the Nazi party before it took power - they thought it would "save" them, and that it was harmless. Yeah, they thought wrong. Also, design and restrictions don't really relate. The Roman Empire was extremely restrictive and oppressive, but was it badly designed? Many people just look for something to save them, and that's where tyrrany _always_ comes in. Something to think about.
Bravo. I couldn't have said it better myself. The UN gaining control over the internet would of course be presented as a further move towards global "peace", also known as "progress". Analyzing history, the only possible method some insane global organization would use in order to try to enforce peace, or what I'd call pseudo-peace, would to be to turn Huxley's Brave New World into reality. Now that would be a nightmare. A forced socialist system for all, centrally governed by a few elitist nuts.
There's a really great picture to go along with this: Fake UN Address
Only Un-Americans put the UN before America.
The prophecies of a 10-nation world confederation, stationed in Europe, in one generational distance from 1948, overseeing the activities of 6 billion people, dictated by 2 rulers, doesn't seem that far off anymore - especially since it's Biblical prophecy.
What does this Eolas company do anyway? Even though Microsoft is completely insane, this company is acting a lot like SCO. It's the whole "pay up or die" methodology of the insane state of the patenting system. Does this company only exist for suing other companies? Their "about us" profile mentioned at the word Eolas means "knowledge". Intellectual Property anyone?
Yes, the Open Source Movement (of which I am also a part of) is capitalist. The capital would be the code contributed and licensed by individuals, and would be distributed in a free market (open source community).
I'm not trolling or trying to be flamebait; I just am angry, but have some very good information about this whole mess, and I'm angry.
People wonder why I was against both Microsoft AND (GASP!) the US DOJ in the whole Microsoft monopoly ordeal. Boies, I'll finish you off later...
Two corrupt systems just make matters worse. Then, here comes this SCO insanity, with the old "good guy" on the "bad guy" side, and not only that, but with one of the SCO servers residing on Sequent's network (now IBM); this fact was presented in the last SCO slashdot article. If IBM and SCO are on the same sides in this (which was suggested by a post in the last sco article, in which the writer claimed it might be a crazy idea but possible), then we're all screwed. So I wonder which sides are absolutely good, and not just merely relatively good.
As for the GPL, their statements are beyond retarded. People choose what license they want to attach to their software. The software I created, called Skyscraper, which is a 3D virtual 138-story building, is distributed under the GPL license Nobody forced me to use the license; I chose it. I don't want the concept to be private, I want it to be public, and for people to use it and create their own versions and enhancements, etc. (the software is at http://www.tliquest.net/skyscraper)
This anti-GPL tactic is being used to simply destroy the GPL and override it, forcing SCO's licenses into everything (watch out - maybe BSD is next). Basically, to me, SCO is telling ME how to distribute MY software, without my consent. This is illegal, people. This scandal is reaching new heights. Oh am I mad right now...
So, what I would do right now, is place SCO, IBM, and any other directly related companies on "suspension" from the Open Source community, so that we have time to figure out who's really who, and what is really going on. Just completely ignore them (all SCO wants right now is attention, so what do we do? ignore them:) . I doubt the courts will work very well, since the courts of today are vastly corrupted (they'll probably side with SCO, even if SCO is nuts). I'm even the Cheif Technology Officer for a startup company right now that's investing time and money to develop Linux-based appliance servers, completely open-source. SCO (and anyone else involved) is trying to get the US government to impose fascism on this open source community (fascism is the government nationalization of industry; basically where the government 'controls' your business, but does not own all of it. Currently China is the best example of a fascist country), and indirectly try to take over our startup.
This reminds me of what my grandpa told me about his escape from the Ukraine (from Stalin's control), and also how my grandma's family suffered under Hitler's control, and how they almost took away her dad for spreading inside info and rebelling (that's where I get some of my traits from). It reminds me of stories of extreme taxation and socialized systems, where the average person is forced to give almost his entire income to the government; then the government's social food programs can't feed the people anymore, due to the corrupt greedy moron dictators (hey, my Grandpa experienced the starvations Stalin was emposing on the public).
Oh God, help us all... (i am also a born-again Christian conservative/part libertarian political analyst, and have been told countless times that I'm "close minded" because i don't adhere to mainstream society, but can't understand why I don't really like Bush, and hate Gore even more, lol. Visit the following link for more info.)
1. Capitalism - equal and free exchange of goods (capital); does not always have to do with money. The money and capital in this stage comes from the customer 100%.
2. Interventionism - when corporations start monopolizing, and exploiting the public, interventionism sets in. This is when the companies prioritize the government, courts, and other powerful things above the average customer. The US is currently at the Radical Interventionist stage, and barely contains any normal capitalism left. This category is where SCO is. Income in this stage comes from customers, exploitations, legal battles, governments (taxes), etc.
3. Fascism - after interventionism, where companies prioritize government, the government eventually takes over and nationalizes the industries. In this stage companies can still be somewhat independent, but are primarily owned and dominated by a central government. This is the model Nazi Germany, modern Sweden, modern China, etc all use. Income in this stage comes mostly from the government (taxes), and a little from customers.
4. Socialism - In this stage the government takes complete control over all business and industry, and begins to distribute resources centrally. Companies no longer are independent, but are government branches. This is done by a progressive taxation on the public, usually ending up around 60-90% of total personal income. This was the economic model of the former USSR (and they collapsed because of it), and was also the former model of China (China has now moved to fascism to prevent collapse).
-Communism, Marxism, etc are political models that utilize socialism.
Some charts are here: http://ministries.tliquest.net/politics/spe ctrum.j pg http://ministries.tliquest.net/politics/econom ic_s pectrum.jpg
>Using the courts (read: government) to try to >extract money from people, rather than >providing goods or services to be purchased on >a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit >model for comapnies if you want to maintain a >healthy capitalist system.
That would be called Radical Interventionism, where companies not only prioritize the government (and courts, etc) over customers, but use it to extract money from people. The current US economy is basically interventionist. Also, capitalism is basically the equal exchange of goods (capital), which is what open source falls under.
There's also an excellent amount of information from John J. Ray, a sociologist from Australia, about Hitler's socialistic policies here:
Socialism
In a capitalist economy, both sides of the transction win (and capitalism deals with capital, and not always money). Party A wants something from Party B. Party A offers a trade for the item from Party B (either money or goods). Party B sees the goods or money as sufficient and good, so they complete the transaction. Both parties are satisfied (and both win).
Microsoft has a radical interventionist, and partially socialist model, and uses it's authoritative status to forcefully take capital (as in ideas, products, designs, etc) from other companies and uses them as it's own; and also enslaves the public into a tax-like bind (similar to socialist governments demanding almost 70+% of one's income in taxes alone).
The open source model is capitalistic, because the capital (code) is voluntarily distributed (private ownership), in a transaction format, where all parties benefit. Just like one doesn't have to use money in a free market system (they an use anything of value), the open source model doesn't have to use money, but it can if it wants to.
Also fascism, according to many sources, is about half socialistic (mostly marxist) and half interventionist; under fascism the government nationalizes industry so that the corporations are under national ownership but also can still operate own their own. Unionization occurs on the national level insted of the local level (Hitler for example founded the Nazi party on the temptations of providing a national working-class 'utopia'). Modern Sweden (possibly currently) has a fascist government, and Stalin eventually converted his goverment to a national socialistic (fascist) model.
So, while Microsoft claims it is capitalistic, and that Linux and other open source projects are "communist", people still actually believe them; even though they've been the pinnacle of deception, including this fiasco with the insane SCO.
So what kind of economic model is SCO's licensing schemes? Well, considering it's a license taxation that's (supposed to be) forced on the public against their will, and that it's portrayed to help the "collective" community, operated by a single elitist power, it's blatantly Socialistic. Read the article above for more information.
Elaborating from some posts back, this whole SCO nonsense occurs around the same time as the end of support for NT4. Now since Microsoft is trying to fight a battle with the Linux community, could this possibly be an attack by Microsoft (followed through by SCO of course)? The logic behind this is that Microsoft can't fight Linux, unless they somehow attack some core issues (mainly attempt to make Linux illegal). There were also Microsoft connections to SCO in this case, if I recall correctly.
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
What happened was that when Mein Kampf was written (the 20's), Hitler was something similar to a gnostic, and was not even close to any form of Christianity. Later on he became demon posessed, and basically began worshipping himself.
Funny how Hitler sounds so much like the mainstream media today...
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Also, his focus of attack was the Jews. In the Bible, any group of people that attacks the Jews (God's chosen people) experiences the extreme revenge of God Himself (not by people). So, since Hitler claimed that God wanted him to attack the Jews, and that Biblically God would destroy anybody who tries to kill his chosen people (the Jews), there is a conflict. This shows that the "God" Hitler was referencing was not the God of the Bible, but was something else...
Slashdot Mirror
I know, just like Linux executables and shared libraries use the ELF format; but the article claims that ELF is "sorta like Microsoft DLLs"; even though EXEs and DLLs both use the PE architecture, making a direct comparison between ELF and DLL files would be trying to assert that ELF is some sort of method for dynamically sharing external libraries, and not an executable format. A good analogy would be saying that the Microsoft PE format is "sorta like Linux shared libraries" - it just doesn't make any sense. Also MacOS doesn't use ELF, but most Unix OSes such as Solaris, IRIX, etc use ELF and ELF64.
There's some weird errors in the article, especially since it comes from a Linux magazine:
"ELF is sorta like Microsoft's DLLs and was developed by AT&T's Unix System Labs as part of the Unix Application Binary Interface (ABI) before Unix was sold to Novell in 1993."
ELF is not like Microsoft's DLLs. ELF is a binary executable format, and is comparable to Microsoft's PE executable format (am i correct on that?) used in their EXE files. Unix shared libraries are comparable to Windows DLLs. Also, that's the first time I've ever seen the word "sorta" in an article. hmmm....
They also don't mention that almost every Unix OS uses the ELF format (as far as I've seen).
"The Free Software Foundation is also the creator of the GPL, the viral license that makes Linux so provocative."
Is this a statement from the Linuxworld author or SCO? SCO claimed the GPL was a "viral" license, but if that is coming from Linuxworld then something's wrong.
"It also says the journaled file system (JFS) module from later versions of AIX, which SCO believes may derive from the JFS Unix, is in Linux 2.6. - MOG"
what's "the JFS Unix"?
Anyway, SCO is going insane and should hopefully die soon. But the author of that article needs to learn more about Linux first lol (especially since it's a Linux magazine).
-eventhorizon
Finally SCO is showing their literal insanity over this issue, and letting everyone see their crazy neurotic hysteria. Next they'll probably blame Linus for stealing the idea of an "operating system", claiming that it is part of their IP, or some crazy patent. They need to be shot.
-eventhorizon
Some problems with that statement. Socialism was described by Marx as the "abolition of private property". Also Socialism relies on a centralized distribution of resources (usually from a government), and also somewhat on the collective ownership on the products of production (not just the production itself). For example, a socialized health care system involves taxing the population at a very high amount (thus resulting in 'collective ownership'), and then having a political power use the money/resources and distribute the services among the population; the quality ends up always being extremely low since the government tries to use as little money as possible to expand its use - usually people with 'connections' (interventionist position) get the good health care, while everyone else gets crap. If open-source was socialist, there would need to be a centralized power that would need to 'own' the developed product, and for a forced collective development to be enacted (similar to slave labor). There would also be no personal ownership of code created (which personal ownership is protected by the GPL).
Open source resembles a free market Libertarian philosophy the most, due to its decentralized, private property-based (GPL), open-ended infrastructure.
"There is also a negative reaction from many rational people to the heavy-weight evangelistic nature of Christianity."
There's also a very negative reaction from many rational Christians to the heavy-weight scientific community, which claims that science and scientific measurements are the answer to everything. Science has enormous limitations, and you can view my other large post, on my explanation of this:
Previous Article
"Rational people usually want evidence to back up claims, evidence which is often not offered by evangelism. This can put people at odds against an idealogy."
Christianity doesn't need to provide evidence to the close-mided, if the evidence comes from supernatural faith and communication, something which you would not be able to comprehend.
"Would you dislike it if people of other religions came thumping you with their religious beliefs using threats of punishment and slander?"
That's what the evolutionist community has been doing to me my whole life.
"...Would it make you uncomfortable?"
No, it just reaffirms my faith, and shows the zealous and dogmatic nature of science taken to the extreme of idolization.
"Also, many active religions today (key point to remember with your claim--many ancient religions of noteworthy attention are no longer practiced) use fear and coersion to recruit new members. Fear of eternal suffering or punishment is commen. Religions often do this at great financial benefit to themselves."
Actually it's much different than that, but what you explained is exactly what the evolution community uses to draw people to it. There is enormous financial benefit to the evolution community from this too. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt are huge sellers in the scientific community today. I would go on, but i need some sleep; also take note that JRR Tolkien was a Christian, and good friends with CS Lewis.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1:26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
"This argument keeps getting killed everytime a rational/scientific explanation comes about for such things as the weather, evolution, gravity, etc."
Ok, I've got a scientific challenge for you. Try to prove your own existence; prove that your life is not just a figment of your imagination. I'm serious. Considering that you wouldn't be able to use anything in your life to prove your existence (since they would be a component of what you are trying to prove), it would become impossible; you would have to be physically outside your own existence to even be able to begin. You would need to know the information of the absolute to be able to answer the question; of which no human has even the slightest ability to comprehend.
Now where am I going with all of this crap? I'm trying to show you that science is not the anwer to everything in life. Imagine a person stranded in space, with just pitch blackness in their field of vision (and nothing around them to relate their position/velocity with). Could the person use scientific methods to determine their position in space, or their velocity? Science uses all of these measurements in relative terms, requiring another object as a base of measurement. In this space scenario, science is useless.
Also, evidence presented as factual could be flawed. Consider the modern judicial systems. "Evidence" could be created to actually show the opposite of what really happened; we see it a lot nowadays. Clinging to science as your purpose in life would be similar to clinging to judicial evidence, no matter how flawed, as your meaning in life and your source of "absolute" truth.
So I have seen science become a religion in itself. You'll probably laugh hysterically at that statement. But think about it. Compare it to a religion. As you study it more and more, you'll find that science has many zealous and dogmatic followers, preaching the Gospel of Science if you will. Placing human knowledge into a god-like position, and worshipping it (not in a stereotypical worshipping method like in a church, but literally raising it up above everything else in life, and making it king over your life).
I'm a highly religious and extremely educated person. I've read works by Darwin and others, and could even lay out the extremely racist elements of Darwin and his theory of evolution, and even how those same racist elements prevail into modern culture today. Even the simple stuff on how Darwin divides the human race into sub species, and claims that all blacks should be exterminated from the planet because they are hindering the developmental progress of the white "master race". Hitler even used the works of Darwin and Nietzsche for his ideological positions on a master race, and the Jews being the hinderance.
So, I've made many evolutionists turn bright red with even the minor information I know. When studies are done, the dark truth comes out. As for me, I don't need to prove my own existence, because I have something called "faith", and also a supernatural relationship with a God, something that you would not even be able to comprehend.
Science is very useful, but is not the answer to everything.
I don't really understand how that site (and organization) can call themselves "Christians" when their own theology heavily contradicts Biblical standards (and is also almost completely dogmatic; sort of like a "reinvention" of Christianity). They seem to be some kind of commercialistic pseudo-christian cult (i'm completely open to other people's views on this).
I wouldn't be suprised if their Virtual Church application was full of spyware or ads.
To show an example of how they have barely any foundation of all, look at their criticism of the Left Behind book series. They condemn it on the basis of their own opinion, without using any Biblical verses as a foundation (that is a very stupid thing to do in Christian circles such as mine, and is also the signs of a possible pseudochristian cult). To compare that in the Linux world (so more people can understand what I'm trying to say), it's almost exactly like SCO bashing the Linux community and the GPL. SCO provides absolutely no foundations for their arguments (which would be actual code, etc), and just rants on and on with their own opinions, while the Linux community just asks "prove it". That's what I'd like to ask the guy who wrote that column - "prove it, and site other documents and Biblical verses entirely to prove your point". It seems like people have become far too opinionated, to the point where they start ignoring almost everything factual, and also reject any form of correction.
Then they blash The Passion movie as being "the most violent movie ever seen", even though movies that came out around the same time such as the remakes Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead were far more violent in my opinion (I saw both, didn't like 'Massacre' and only liked the original 'Dawn', since the new one was sloppily done). Even movies preceding Passion were far more violent. Luckily the exaggeration of the violence has helped the Passion gain even larger audiences.
Nothing can top their "Biblical Curse Generator", which is absolutely sickening. What moron would just take random sentences from something (completely removing the context), and using them as authentic single-context "quotes"? If someone did that to the Islamic Quran nowadays, they'd be lynched.
Hmmm... they support laws for making it a criminal offense to "incite" religious hatred. I guess they don't like freedom of speech; especially since that law would also curb their own freedom of speech too. What if something they said was considered "religious hatred" and their isp connection was pulled? There goes their "virtual" church...
Maybe they are just a "ship of fools" after all.
Yep, and we all know it's impossible to have a global judicial body. ICC anyone?
-eventhorizon
He's just borrowing it. He'll return it when finished. Don't panic. ;)
-eventhorizon
This means I can patent the idea of "A small company named SCO crashing and burning"!! yay. I'll enjoy the tiny $1000/sec license fee revenue coming from Darl...
We need a patent reform. NOW
-eventhorizon
"The United Nations is not and cannot be a world government. It's not a government at all. It lacks the legitimate authority to govern anything."
That is correct, but one thing you need to think about is that the UN could create or establish a global government out of the consolidation of power it currently has. So, a governmental political entity could be spawn off at the request of the members of the UN (dictators, etc) and would be a unifying global governance body. This is very possible, and the idea should not be taken lightly. It reminds me of the book Brave New World; and also that immense power is in the hands of a small few.
Is a "global government" forming? Yes. Do I approve of it? Not in your wildest dreams.
-eventhorizon5
There's studies that have even showed "global warming" on Mars, where there's no human interaction. Being a skeptical environmentalist is very good, since you keep an open mind, instead of following the "pop-culture" dogma.
>but I highly doubt that a UN-controlled Internet
>administrative body would have been to stupidly
>designed that it would impose restrictions on the
>'Net just because some UN member applied pressure.
That's what the German people thought of the Nazi party before it took power - they thought it would "save" them, and that it was harmless. Yeah, they thought wrong. Also, design and restrictions don't really relate. The Roman Empire was extremely restrictive and oppressive, but was it badly designed? Many people just look for something to save them, and that's where tyrrany _always_ comes in. Something to think about.
Bravo. I couldn't have said it better myself. The UN gaining control over the internet would of course be presented as a further move towards global "peace", also known as "progress". Analyzing history, the only possible method some insane global organization would use in order to try to enforce peace, or what I'd call pseudo-peace, would to be to turn Huxley's Brave New World into reality. Now that would be a nightmare. A forced socialist system for all, centrally governed by a few elitist nuts.
There's a really great picture to go along with this:
Fake UN Address
Only Un-Americans put the UN before America.
The prophecies of a 10-nation world confederation, stationed in Europe, in one generational distance from 1948, overseeing the activities of 6 billion people, dictated by 2 rulers, doesn't seem that far off anymore - especially since it's Biblical prophecy.
What does this Eolas company do anyway? Even though Microsoft is completely insane, this company is acting a lot like SCO. It's the whole "pay up or die" methodology of the insane state of the patenting system. Does this company only exist for suing other companies? Their "about us" profile mentioned at the word Eolas means "knowledge". Intellectual Property anyone?
>Think about the technology from 1983, would you >use that over the current technology?
SCO would.
Yes, the Open Source Movement (of which I am also a part of) is capitalist. The capital would be the code contributed and licensed by individuals, and would be distributed in a free market (open source community).
There's even much, much earlier pieces of this code, from 1973 and 1975:
s /dmr/ malloc.c.html
s r/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
from a comment on LWN.net:
"nsys" code, Aug 1973, dating between v3 and v4.
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Nsys/sys/nsy
The v6 code (May 1975) is where these comments are introduced.
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V6/u
Hey, Homer Simpson must have known about this campaign already:
"Dean, you are a stupid-head!" - Homer J. Simpson
I'm not trolling or trying to be flamebait; I just am angry, but have some very good information about this whole mess, and I'm angry.
:) . I doubt the courts will work very well, since the courts of today are vastly corrupted (they'll probably side with SCO, even if SCO is nuts). I'm even the Cheif Technology Officer for a startup company right now that's investing time and money to develop Linux-based appliance servers, completely open-source. SCO (and anyone else involved) is trying to get the US government to impose fascism on this open source community (fascism is the government nationalization of industry; basically where the government 'controls' your business, but does not own all of it. Currently China is the best example of a fascist country), and indirectly try to take over our startup.
People wonder why I was against both Microsoft AND (GASP!) the US DOJ in the whole Microsoft monopoly ordeal. Boies, I'll finish you off later...
Two corrupt systems just make matters worse. Then, here comes this SCO insanity, with the old "good guy" on the "bad guy" side, and not only that, but with one of the SCO servers residing on Sequent's network (now IBM); this fact was presented in the last SCO slashdot article. If IBM and SCO are on the same sides in this (which was suggested by a post in the last sco article, in which the writer claimed it might be a crazy idea but possible), then we're all screwed. So I wonder which sides are absolutely good, and not just merely relatively good.
As for the GPL, their statements are beyond retarded. People choose what license they want to attach to their software. The software I created, called Skyscraper, which is a 3D virtual 138-story building, is distributed under the GPL license Nobody forced me to use the license; I chose it. I don't want the concept to be private, I want it to be public, and for people to use it and create their own versions and enhancements, etc. (the software is at http://www.tliquest.net/skyscraper)
This anti-GPL tactic is being used to simply destroy the GPL and override it, forcing SCO's licenses into everything (watch out - maybe BSD is next). Basically, to me, SCO is telling ME how to distribute MY software, without my consent. This is illegal, people. This scandal is reaching new heights. Oh am I mad right now...
So, what I would do right now, is place SCO, IBM, and any other directly related companies on "suspension" from the Open Source community, so that we have time to figure out who's really who, and what is really going on. Just completely ignore them (all SCO wants right now is attention, so what do we do? ignore them
This reminds me of what my grandpa told me about his escape from the Ukraine (from Stalin's control), and also how my grandma's family suffered under Hitler's control, and how they almost took away her dad for spreading inside info and rebelling (that's where I get some of my traits from). It reminds me of stories of extreme taxation and socialized systems, where the average person is forced to give almost his entire income to the government; then the government's social food programs can't feed the people anymore, due to the corrupt greedy moron dictators (hey, my Grandpa experienced the starvations Stalin was emposing on the public).
Oh God, help us all... (i am also a born-again Christian conservative/part libertarian political analyst, and have been told countless times that I'm "close minded" because i don't adhere to mainstream society, but can't understand why I don't really like Bush, and hate Gore even more, lol. Visit the following link for more info.)
http://www.thenewamerican.com (my favorite mag - oh yeah)
'but you're for big business' they say to me... even though I'm only 21 and broke. So I simply respond with "Prove it."
That's almost correct.
e ctrum.j pgm ic_s pectrum.jpg
Basically it goes like this:
1. Capitalism - equal and free exchange of goods (capital); does not always have to do with money. The money and capital in this stage comes from the customer 100%.
2. Interventionism - when corporations start monopolizing, and exploiting the public, interventionism sets in. This is when the companies prioritize the government, courts, and other powerful things above the average customer. The US is currently at the Radical Interventionist stage, and barely contains any normal capitalism left. This category is where SCO is. Income in this stage comes from customers, exploitations, legal battles, governments (taxes), etc.
3. Fascism - after interventionism, where companies prioritize government, the government eventually takes over and nationalizes the industries. In this stage companies can still be somewhat independent, but are primarily owned and dominated by a central government. This is the model Nazi Germany, modern Sweden, modern China, etc all use. Income in this stage comes mostly from the government (taxes), and a little from customers.
4. Socialism - In this stage the government takes complete control over all business and industry, and begins to distribute resources centrally. Companies no longer are independent, but are government branches. This is done by a progressive taxation on the public, usually ending up around 60-90% of total personal income. This was the economic model of the former USSR (and they collapsed because of it), and was also the former model of China (China has now moved to fascism to prevent collapse).
-Communism, Marxism, etc are political models that utilize socialism.
Some charts are here:
http://ministries.tliquest.net/politics/sp
http://ministries.tliquest.net/politics/econo
>Using the courts (read: government) to try to >extract money from people, rather than >providing goods or services to be purchased on >a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit >model for comapnies if you want to maintain a >healthy capitalist system.
That would be called Radical Interventionism, where companies not only prioritize the government (and courts, etc) over customers, but use it to extract money from people. The current US economy is basically interventionist. Also, capitalism is basically the equal exchange of goods (capital), which is what open source falls under.
There's also an excellent amount of information from John J. Ray, a sociologist from Australia, about Hitler's socialistic policies here:
Socialism
In a capitalist economy, both sides of the transction win (and capitalism deals with capital, and not always money). Party A wants something from Party B. Party A offers a trade for the item from Party B (either money or goods). Party B sees the goods or money as sufficient and good, so they complete the transaction. Both parties are satisfied (and both win).
Microsoft has a radical interventionist, and partially socialist model, and uses it's authoritative status to forcefully take capital (as in ideas, products, designs, etc) from other companies and uses them as it's own; and also enslaves the public into a tax-like bind (similar to socialist governments demanding almost 70+% of one's income in taxes alone).
The open source model is capitalistic, because the capital (code) is voluntarily distributed (private ownership), in a transaction format, where all parties benefit. Just like one doesn't have to use money in a free market system (they an use anything of value), the open source model doesn't have to use money, but it can if it wants to.
Also fascism, according to many sources, is about half socialistic (mostly marxist) and half interventionist; under fascism the government nationalizes industry so that the corporations are under national ownership but also can still operate own their own. Unionization occurs on the national level insted of the local level (Hitler for example founded the Nazi party on the temptations of providing a national working-class 'utopia'). Modern Sweden (possibly currently) has a fascist government, and Stalin eventually converted his goverment to a national socialistic (fascist) model.
So, while Microsoft claims it is capitalistic, and that Linux and other open source projects are "communist", people still actually believe them; even though they've been the pinnacle of deception, including this fiasco with the insane SCO.
So what kind of economic model is SCO's licensing schemes? Well, considering it's a license taxation that's (supposed to be) forced on the public against their will, and that it's portrayed to help the "collective" community, operated by a single elitist power, it's blatantly Socialistic. Read the article above for more information.
Elaborating from some posts back, this whole SCO nonsense occurs around the same time as the end of support for NT4. Now since Microsoft is trying to fight a battle with the Linux community, could this possibly be an attack by Microsoft (followed through by SCO of course)? The logic behind this is that Microsoft can't fight Linux, unless they somehow attack some core issues (mainly attempt to make Linux illegal). There were also Microsoft connections to SCO in this case, if I recall correctly.
Even more information on that:
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
What happened was that when Mein Kampf was written (the 20's), Hitler was something similar to a gnostic, and was not even close to any form of Christianity. Later on he became demon posessed, and basically began worshipping himself.
Funny how Hitler sounds so much like the mainstream media today...
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Also, his focus of attack was the Jews. In the Bible, any group of people that attacks the Jews (God's chosen people) experiences the extreme revenge of God Himself (not by people). So, since Hitler claimed that God wanted him to attack the Jews, and that Biblically God would destroy anybody who tries to kill his chosen people (the Jews), there is a conflict. This shows that the "God" Hitler was referencing was not the God of the Bible, but was something else...