So the US has a system to tap all calls, including all internet traffic. Wow, that's unpossible. Not to mention, someone has to look at all of this traffic, someone has to listen to all the calls. I'm not a math major, but I think the odds are against the US or anyone short of Xenu from actually having something like what you describe in place.
Human analysis is the achiles heel. Computers can only do so much.
So then you are arguing that 2 (from my original post) is false? Try to tell that to customs the next time you come thru a port of entry into the US. That ought to be good for a laugh.
I think we have finally found the first of the 1000's of people involved in the governments false flag operation commonly known as 9/11.
So, St0rmCr0w, who were you talking to on 9/11 about the Patriot Act? Your pals Bush and Cheney? It was a mistake to reveal yourself in such a clumsy manner and on such a public forum.
An f'in email would only have prevented 9/11 if it had gotten to the right person at the right time and they had all of the other pieces in place. Talk about your Monday morning quarterbacking.
About the constitution, I don't think there is any reasonable way to interpret that would prevent wiretapping international calls.
1. Calls are property 2. Property crossing our borders are subject to inspection
If 2 is false, then we may as well just give up now, cause telephone calls will be the least of our problems.
I wonder how some one who doesn't believe in God can be offended when some one who does says they are going to hell. I seriously doubt the 'atheist' would be offended if a buddhist said they were going to come back as a roach or a follower of Zeus says they're going to be two bits short of a trip to hades.
It's like Americans who constantly point out every thing negative about America. It's easy to be a critic, it's a lot harder to create something that persists. I'm not knocking atheism, I am one on most days.
...aren't really atheists, they're more likely to be garden variety anti-christians. They disprove god by choosing the most asinine examples from their youth and ridiculing them. The 100 proofs against god are all just negations of some idiot christians 100 proofs for god.
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm happy therefore there is a god" vs "If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm not happy therefore there is not a god"
Both statements are about as stupid as stupid can get and yet both sides of the debate choose to use this crap to gore their oxen. People actually choose to link to this drivel in their sigs. Why not just put "I'm a complete moron and proud of it" as your sig.
Must be something in the air today. Agreed with your post all the way until that last paragraph. I think most people, including most christians, would not agree with your definition of a cult. Unless, that is, you are talking about a christian cult.
See, I don't reject JC, I respect JC. I just don't think he was the son of God. If you read your KJB, you'll find that he never claims to be the son of God. There is at least one mention of the son of God in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), however it's not in reference to JC. The closest JC ever came to claiming to be the son of God is saying something like 'our Father'. I think his response when asked is very telling.
Paul aka Saul, aka 'not a disciple, who never met JC', was probably more responsible for the Romanization of the early church and subsequent deification of JC, then anyone.
Anywhile, to quote the mahatma, "I would have been a christian, if it wasn't for the christians".
"Microsoft continues to use its o/s monopoly to skew the browser market by bundling IE with every copy of Windows. The fact that IE's market share is falling only proves how unsatisfactory consumers find Microsoft's offering."
So then, the whole DoJ thing vis-a-vis microsoft is either working or unneccesary? Or you want it both ways?
Anywhile, what killed Netscape was trying to move into the browser/email/swiss-army-knife market. What a pig! Every modern OS distro comes with a browser. Phones have them for Pete's sake. It would have been idiotic for MS not to write their own browser.
""Internet time" has been slowed by a factor of 10..."
You must be too young to remember the bubble bursting on Web 1.0, which probably had a greater effect on "Internet time" then anything Microsoft did or didn't do. As far as standards, if they are important enough to enough people, then not implementing them should be good for competing browsers and bad for Microsoft. If IE did support all standards, it would be the first browser to do so.
"Unlike 10 years ago, the world has moved past its reliance on Microsoft to embrace other vendors products willingly. No wonder IE's market share continues to fall precipitously."
So then you agree with the DoJ and the 5 states that the thing they did vis-a-vis Microsoft worked? Good, glad to have that settled.
All of you whiney fan-bois and grrls should take a step back and realize what it is you are admitting when you say the stupid things that you say. If the things MS makes are 'defectivebydesign', then monopoly or not, some other system will win. If MS can't innovate, can't implement standards, can't make stable systems, then some other system will win. If closed source is such a bad model, then some other system will win.
It's hard to make a case that MS should continue to be hobbled when it's "The Year of Widespread Linux Adoption".
I'm sure most slashdotters have no idea what an Italian Public School is like. Probably worth a paragraph, if you can sum it up.
I've been to public school in England, Florida and Texas. English public school was a nightmare, maybe because of anti-Yankee sentiments and how young I was, however, classes were crowded and the teachers acted like New Jersery toll booth attendants. Florida was even worse, classes were 30 minutes long and the teachers probably were rejected for toll booth work. Texas actually had some decent schools, however, the academics were seriously unchallenging. My biology teacher taught Darwin by dividing the class into those who thought he might be right and those with souls.
During the Netscape wars, Netscape tried to leverage thier monopoly on browsers to extend into email. The craptastic software that that produced is the reason they failed. They should have just kept making a good browser.
Not only that, but they used their desktop OS monopoly to have a monopoly on paint programs, mouse pointers, calculators (bastards!), solitaire and minesweeper. It gets worse. Their whole monolithic, desktop OS seems to have been designed so that they can provide software to their customers. And it seems they act without considering that other OSs may also want to have customers someday.
"The GPL is usually the only thing giving you permission to make copies of someone else's copyrighted work"
Usually there's this download source code link and it don't ask for no permissions. After that, I can copy that sucker all day long without any permissions at all. YMMV.
Now we need to define derivative products. Apparently, that could mean anything from using libraries to only being able to run on a linux kernel. It would be nice if there was some clarity on this issue.
I don't care either way. Usually I only steal structures that define standards which are not covered by copyright. If someone has a well defined structure that has all the values, text and stuff, it really helps with debugging the actual work. For me, it is easier to program the work myself as other people like to do things other ways and I detest bug hunting other peoples code.
You have a good point. It never occured to me that the real intention of the FSF is to "open source" Microsoft patents. I wasn't aware that there was a big demand to slap patent infringing code into GNU. Now it all makes perfect sense, from the FSF side at least.
Still, I think it would be a bad idea for the FSF to try this in court before Microsoft actually does something with their patents. Publicly they have said they would do nothing, so why go there when Linux has so much momentum.
"Are we going to start getting stories submitted about what someone says on their blog now?"
Depends on whose blog it is, I would imagine. RMS, Linus, etc, could make news for nerds by posting something on a blog. Wouldn't be the first time.
Still, you have to expect this nonsense when one side decides to use their license for something other then licensing software. Promoting the 4 freedoms and trying to entrap MS into some wierd patent ponzi scheme, are all well and good, but there are quite a few developers who don't give a crap about that stuff and just want to write code.
Even if you don't consider it news, it was nice to learn that not all code can be copyrighted (such as header files, standards compliance, etc). Here I was getting all guilty for violating some poor schlubs copyright and it turns out they can't copyright that stuff.
Woo Hoo! I'm off to borrow even more stuff now and I'm going to strip all the copyrighting/licensing cruft.
Sounds like they would be abiding by the license. It certainly doesn't promote the 4 software freedoms, but then freedom to circumvent hardware was always a bit dicey as a software freedom.
So the FSF thinks that the GPL3 will protect them from patent infringement? Seems like a lost cause. If the FSF is violating a patent or two, chances are it is a violation that predates the GPL3.
Anywhile, once the lawyers get involved it just increases the odds that everyone else will get screwed.
I thought the jury was out on that point. I suppose I missed the juries decision. The jury being composed of the founders of the FOSS movement and their law team and maybe Linus, if they feel like it. I'm sure they won't use their contorl over the FOSS systems and libraries to stop some very rich companies from using their FOSS systems and libraries to make money.
There's absolutely no precedent for that ever having happened in the past or even recently. Besides, they just have to change to a service model and open source, cause closed source software is evil. That cash register at the supermarket...evil. The ATM machine...evil. Your cell phone...evil.
Slashdot Mirror
So the US has a system to tap all calls, including all internet traffic. Wow, that's unpossible. Not to mention, someone has to look at all of this traffic, someone has to listen to all the calls. I'm not a math major, but I think the odds are against the US or anyone short of Xenu from actually having something like what you describe in place.
Human analysis is the achiles heel. Computers can only do so much.
So then you are arguing that 2 (from my original post) is false? Try to tell that to customs the next time you come thru a port of entry into the US. That ought to be good for a laugh.
I think we have finally found the first of the 1000's of people involved in the governments false flag operation commonly known as 9/11.
So, St0rmCr0w, who were you talking to on 9/11 about the Patriot Act? Your pals Bush and Cheney? It was a mistake to reveal yourself in such a clumsy manner and on such a public forum.
That knock on the door is coming...
An f'in email would only have prevented 9/11 if it had gotten to the right person at the right time and they had all of the other pieces in place. Talk about your Monday morning quarterbacking.
About the constitution, I don't think there is any reasonable way to interpret that would prevent wiretapping international calls.
1. Calls are property
2. Property crossing our borders are subject to inspection
If 2 is false, then we may as well just give up now, cause telephone calls will be the least of our problems.
I wonder how some one who doesn't believe in God can be offended when some one who does says they are going to hell. I seriously doubt the 'atheist' would be offended if a buddhist said they were going to come back as a roach or a follower of Zeus says they're going to be two bits short of a trip to hades.
It's like Americans who constantly point out every thing negative about America. It's easy to be a critic, it's a lot harder to create something that persists. I'm not knocking atheism, I am one on most days.
Probably lucky that they were in Sydney and not Singapore. Glad to hear that no one was hurt in the end.
...aren't really atheists, they're more likely to be garden variety anti-christians. They disprove god by choosing the most asinine examples from their youth and ridiculing them. The 100 proofs against god are all just negations of some idiot christians 100 proofs for god.
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm happy therefore there is a god"
vs
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm not happy therefore there is not a god"
Both statements are about as stupid as stupid can get and yet both sides of the debate choose to use this crap to gore their oxen. People actually choose to link to this drivel in their sigs. Why not just put "I'm a complete moron and proud of it" as your sig.
Must be something in the air today. Agreed with your post all the way until that last paragraph. I think most people, including most christians, would not agree with your definition of a cult. Unless, that is, you are talking about a christian cult.
See, I don't reject JC, I respect JC. I just don't think he was the son of God. If you read your KJB, you'll find that he never claims to be the son of God. There is at least one mention of the son of God in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), however it's not in reference to JC. The closest JC ever came to claiming to be the son of God is saying something like 'our Father'. I think his response when asked is very telling.
Paul aka Saul, aka 'not a disciple, who never met JC', was probably more responsible for the Romanization of the early church and subsequent deification of JC, then anyone.
Anywhile, to quote the mahatma, "I would have been a christian, if it wasn't for the christians".
"Microsoft continues to use its o/s monopoly to skew the browser market by bundling IE with every copy of Windows. The fact that IE's market share is falling only proves how unsatisfactory consumers find Microsoft's offering."
So then, the whole DoJ thing vis-a-vis microsoft is either working or unneccesary? Or you want it both ways?
Anywhile, what killed Netscape was trying to move into the browser/email/swiss-army-knife market. What a pig! Every modern OS distro comes with a browser. Phones have them for Pete's sake. It would have been idiotic for MS not to write their own browser.
""Internet time" has been slowed by a factor of 10..."
You must be too young to remember the bubble bursting on Web 1.0, which probably had a greater effect on "Internet time" then anything Microsoft did or didn't do. As far as standards, if they are important enough to enough people, then not implementing them should be good for competing browsers and bad for Microsoft. If IE did support all standards, it would be the first browser to do so.
Film at 11.
Of course, Microsoft will address the changes and probably buy a few more votes. Their timetable is probably still not in jeopardy.
Like Jason at Halloween, they will just keep coming.
"Unlike 10 years ago, the world has moved past its reliance on Microsoft to embrace other vendors products willingly. No wonder IE's market share continues to fall precipitously."
So then you agree with the DoJ and the 5 states that the thing they did vis-a-vis Microsoft worked? Good, glad to have that settled.
All of you whiney fan-bois and grrls should take a step back and realize what it is you are admitting when you say the stupid things that you say. If the things MS makes are 'defectivebydesign', then monopoly or not, some other system will win. If MS can't innovate, can't implement standards, can't make stable systems, then some other system will win. If closed source is such a bad model, then some other system will win.
It's hard to make a case that MS should continue to be hobbled when it's "The Year of Widespread Linux Adoption".
I'm sure most slashdotters have no idea what an Italian Public School is like. Probably worth a paragraph, if you can sum it up.
I've been to public school in England, Florida and Texas. English public school was a nightmare, maybe because of anti-Yankee sentiments and how young I was, however, classes were crowded and the teachers acted like New Jersery toll booth attendants. Florida was even worse, classes were 30 minutes long and the teachers probably were rejected for toll booth work. Texas actually had some decent schools, however, the academics were seriously unchallenging. My biology teacher taught Darwin by dividing the class into those who thought he might be right and those with souls.
So we're all clear, right?
During the Netscape wars, Netscape tried to leverage thier monopoly on browsers to extend into email. The craptastic software that that produced is the reason they failed. They should have just kept making a good browser.
Not only that, but they used their desktop OS monopoly to have a monopoly on paint programs, mouse pointers, calculators (bastards!), solitaire and minesweeper. It gets worse. Their whole monolithic, desktop OS seems to have been designed so that they can provide software to their customers. And it seems they act without considering that other OSs may also want to have customers someday.
This should be modded up. Excellent summary of all of the points.
"The GPL is usually the only thing giving you permission to make copies of someone else's copyrighted work"
Usually there's this download source code link and it don't ask for no permissions. After that, I can copy that sucker all day long without any permissions at all. YMMV.
Now we need to define derivative products. Apparently, that could mean anything from using libraries to only being able to run on a linux kernel. It would be nice if there was some clarity on this issue.
I don't care either way. Usually I only steal structures that define standards which are not covered by copyright. If someone has a well defined structure that has all the values, text and stuff, it really helps with debugging the actual work. For me, it is easier to program the work myself as other people like to do things other ways and I detest bug hunting other peoples code.
You have a good point. It never occured to me that the real intention of the FSF is to "open source" Microsoft patents. I wasn't aware that there was a big demand to slap patent infringing code into GNU. Now it all makes perfect sense, from the FSF side at least.
Still, I think it would be a bad idea for the FSF to try this in court before Microsoft actually does something with their patents. Publicly they have said they would do nothing, so why go there when Linux has so much momentum.
...can everyone just take a number and form a line?
"Are we going to start getting stories submitted about what someone says on their blog now?"
Depends on whose blog it is, I would imagine. RMS, Linus, etc, could make news for nerds by posting something on a blog. Wouldn't be the first time.
Still, you have to expect this nonsense when one side decides to use their license for something other then licensing software. Promoting the 4 freedoms and trying to entrap MS into some wierd patent ponzi scheme, are all well and good, but there are quite a few developers who don't give a crap about that stuff and just want to write code.
Even if you don't consider it news, it was nice to learn that not all code can be copyrighted (such as header files, standards compliance, etc). Here I was getting all guilty for violating some poor schlubs copyright and it turns out they can't copyright that stuff.
Woo Hoo! I'm off to borrow even more stuff now and I'm going to strip all the copyrighting/licensing cruft.
Sounds like they would be abiding by the license. It certainly doesn't promote the 4 software freedoms, but then freedom to circumvent hardware was always a bit dicey as a software freedom.
So the FSF thinks that the GPL3 will protect them from patent infringement? Seems like a lost cause. If the FSF is violating a patent or two, chances are it is a violation that predates the GPL3.
Anywhile, once the lawyers get involved it just increases the odds that everyone else will get screwed.
I thought the jury was out on that point. I suppose I missed the juries decision. The jury being composed of the founders of the FOSS movement and their law team and maybe Linus, if they feel like it. I'm sure they won't use their contorl over the FOSS systems and libraries to stop some very rich companies from using their FOSS systems and libraries to make money.
There's absolutely no precedent for that ever having happened in the past or even recently. Besides, they just have to change to a service model and open source, cause closed source software is evil. That cash register at the supermarket...evil. The ATM machine...evil. Your cell phone...evil.
And in case you missed it, I am being SARCASTIC!
That's funny, the headline and article are all about DirectX X.