Here's the problem... who says these photos are on military computers? Soldiers are taking these photos with their own personal digital cameras, then, presumably download/send them to their own computers at home. There's no military networks involved at all. That's where this is probably happening. This stuff exposes no risks to the actual US military network infrastructure.
Seriously, there's no such thing as free, especially for something concrete like this. It's not like these iPods are wafting out of thin air -- somebody's got to be paying for them. My guess is at least some of this has been spent using student's money on their behalf.
With the BSD license, code tends to slowly drift into closed projects, as the old code becomes unnmaintained and unpatched.
Do you have any actual empirical evidence that this happens? Or did you just make it up and hope that it sounded plausible?
People contribute back to open source because it's in their best interest, not because the GPL makes them want to. When you contribute to open source, you get to see your changes improved upon, and that's in your best interest.
Gosh, don't you know that color is always better! It's more advanced! And it looks nice!
In other news, voting on a computer system is much more advanced! And therefore it's better than the primitive methods that preceded it! Just look at these exciting menu animations!
English, by the way, has been estimated to have 350-1000 million speakers as a second language. If you're travelling anywhere in the western world, probabilistically it would be safest to bet that any given person spoke English.
This year, with the nation split so tightly, and last time's close call fresh in everybody's mind, the tolerance for such flaws is going to be lower than it's ever been. The smallest election scandal is going to get magnified now.
Which means that whoever wins it won't seem legitimate and that we're going to be in this same godawful mess for at least the next four more years.
* torrent-based (+rendezvous for lans) so it can be serverless.
* use it with any kind of document, not just the "wikicode" bastardized HTML. Stick it in OpenOffice. That kind of collaboration/sharing/tracking feature would blow MS Office away.
I use a wiki for my own personal use all the time. I wish that I could use it for any kind of writing, but I really need a real word processor for some things.
And why the GFDL? Would he pick a Creative Commons share-a-like license if he were starting wikipedia today?
The GFDL seems full of arbitrary-seeming and overcomplicated rules about "Cover texts", "Back-Cover texts", "Invariant sections" and so forth that are difficult to 1) understand the reasoning behind and 2) adhere to properly. Read it yourself here. It's also requires you to give credit to the "principal authors", whom exactly that would be for a given wikipedia page is impossible to tell with legal certainty. It just doesn't seem appropriate for something like the wikipedia.
In that case, Gone with the Wind beats the pants off Star Wars, or for that matter, Titanic. Adjusted for inflation and ticket prices, it would have brought in $2.5 billion in today's money, compared to Titanic's paltry $1 billion.
Microsoft: Gee, I wonder if the new Department of Justice will be any different.
DOJ: Hello.
Microsoft: Hello.
DOJ: I'm the new Department of Justice under the this administration.
Microsoft: So, are you going to break us up?
DOJ: Huh?
Microsoft: You know, the anti-trust case. We were convicted, and last time we talked to the old DOJ, we were working on a remedy...
DOJ: Oh, right.
Microsoft: So, are you going to break us up?
DOJ: Why?
Microsoft: The anti-trust case, we are a convicted monopoly...
DOJ: Goodness, that seems harsh. Did you do anything wrong?
Microsoft: We were convicted... but... uh... no?
DOJ: We've been working on a new remedy proposal. We've discussed hundreds of possible penalties in high-level talks on this issue. And I assure you this our best offer. So, how does absolutely nothing sound?
Interesting fact: Hamas calls them "matyrs" to draw attention away from the fact that suicide was involved (a strict sin in Islam). So "homicide bomber" might be what they prefer to be called.
" There is a lot of sand in Iraq, which means a lot of hiding places. If you have ever lost anything in something as small as a beach, imagine the scale involved with a "beach" that is 167,924 square miles"
This analogy is silly. Let's also say that the thing you're looking for was purpoted to weigh hundreds of tons and need an untold amount of support hardware and shelter in order to exist. Thousands of people would have to have at least have some clue where the thing is; you've had unfettered access to these people for more than a year. And you've had 100,000 people looking for it using spy satellites and the most advanced technology we have for more than a year as well. If the weapons really do exist they must have been hidden so well that they themselves didn't know where it was.
Is there ever going to be a point where you are going to change your mind on this? Say, five years from now, will you still be holding onto this line? You'll still be able to say it then -- the argument would still be exactly the same: Iraq will still be a big country, I'm sure there will be all sorts vague signs you will be able to interpret in just the right way. What's the threshold here?
I'm willing to accept that things didn't run like clockwork that day. It's easy to criticize in hindsight.
However, I have NO sympathy for the Bush administration when they are the blunt of these criticisms because of their shameless dishonesty in trying to explain what happened:
Later, hiding twice over, he used them as an excuse, saying he did not want to frighten them by ending the reading before finishing the book. Later still, and repeatedly, he said he saw the first plane strike the tower that morning (in fact, no one saw that live; the film was not available until the evening) and that he remarked, "That's some bad pilot"--pure strut. As the Wall Street Journal reported, he also magnified his role in managing the crisis, claiming he gave orders others gave. Conflicting accounts of Bush's communications documented by the 9/11 Commission now raise doubts whether, as he and Cheney told the commissioners, he ordered Cheney to shoot down any hijacked planes still in the air, or whether Cheney, in the White House bunker, acted on his own.
(source)(more)
Most moviegoers are aged 18-30, a well known fact of entertainment industry marketing.
It could be that even more than average fell into this demographic for this movie, but I'd like to see some real evidence before I believe that, but otherwise this doesn't look any different than the null hypothesis to me.
It's true that Moore implied that the bin Laden family flew out when all flights were cancelled, and now some people believe it as fact.
And them someone else implies something else. Like "Makes you wonder about some of the others." Do you have any specific problems with any of the other points the parent poster made, or are you just going to imply them and perhaps believe something is there that isn't?
I agree that the movie could be called propaganda. But, there's a certain point you missed.
One of the things Moore (and in my opinion others should also be) is criticized for is implying things.
Take your post: You took criticism of his last movie, Bowling for Columbine, and then said, well obviously there are problems with Michael Moore's "movies" trying to implicitly give them impression that the criticism applies to this current movie when that is not the case.
(And 'we get comments like "The arabs aren't ready for democracy"' -- really? Whom exactly said this? Michael Moore, someone on slashdot, some generalized, extremified person you made up in your head?)
So obviously Moore is doing this entirely for the money. Remember that when you see this in the theatre: Someone is making money off of this. It is therefore entirely false.
And Moore cancelled one interview on Fox News at the last minute! I'm sure this is totally out of the ordinary. People only do this when they have sinister motives. All those other times Moore has been on Fox notwithstanding, you were right to infer that he is obviously afraid to show his face on Fox where he might be criticized, even though he's been on Fox plenty on times before.
/end sarcasm. Seriously, from where did you copy these talking points? Is this the best you could come up with?
Slashdot Mirror
Swedish universities are socialized. As long as you can get in, you don't have to pay anything.
Here's the problem... who says these photos are on military computers? Soldiers are taking these photos with their own personal digital cameras, then, presumably download/send them to their own computers at home. There's no military networks involved at all. That's where this is probably happening. This stuff exposes no risks to the actual US military network infrastructure.
Right, if it solves less than 100% of the problem, then it must be the equivalent of 0%. We've all seen this line of argument before.
Seriously, there's no such thing as free, especially for something concrete like this. It's not like these iPods are wafting out of thin air -- somebody's got to be paying for them. My guess is at least some of this has been spent using student's money on their behalf.
In unrelated news, tuition is up $399 this year.
With the BSD license, code tends to slowly drift into closed projects, as the old code becomes unnmaintained and unpatched.
Do you have any actual empirical evidence that this happens? Or did you just make it up and hope that it sounded plausible?
People contribute back to open source because it's in their best interest, not because the GPL makes them want to. When you contribute to open source, you get to see your changes improved upon, and that's in your best interest.
Gosh, don't you know that color is always better! It's more advanced! And it looks nice!
In other news, voting on a computer system is much more advanced! And therefore it's better than the primitive methods that preceded it! Just look at these exciting menu animations!
English, by the way, has been estimated to have 350-1000 million speakers as a second language. If you're travelling anywhere in the western world, probabilistically it would be safest to bet that any given person spoke English.
They probably figured you were a PR rep if you went to that much trouble. Did you really expect them to have someone spend the time to read all that?
Did you ever think of sending them a polite, short and simple letter?
This year, with the nation split so tightly, and last time's close call fresh in everybody's mind, the tolerance for such flaws is going to be lower than it's ever been. The smallest election scandal is going to get magnified now.
Which means that whoever wins it won't seem legitimate and that we're going to be in this same godawful mess for at least the next four more years.
* torrent-based (+rendezvous for lans) so it can be serverless.
* use it with any kind of document, not just the "wikicode" bastardized HTML. Stick it in OpenOffice. That kind of collaboration/sharing/tracking feature would blow MS Office away.
I use a wiki for my own personal use all the time. I wish that I could use it for any kind of writing, but I really need a real word processor for some things.
The GFDL seems full of arbitrary-seeming and overcomplicated rules about "Cover texts", "Back-Cover texts", "Invariant sections" and so forth that are difficult to 1) understand the reasoning behind and 2) adhere to properly. Read it yourself here. It's also requires you to give credit to the "principal authors", whom exactly that would be for a given wikipedia page is impossible to tell with legal certainty. It just doesn't seem appropriate for something like the wikipedia.
The post office?
In that case, Gone with the Wind beats the pants off Star Wars, or for that matter, Titanic. Adjusted for inflation and ticket prices, it would have brought in $2.5 billion in today's money, compared to Titanic's paltry $1 billion.
Microsoft: Gee, I wonder if the new Department of Justice will be any different.
DOJ: Hello.
Microsoft: Hello.
DOJ: I'm the new Department of Justice under the this administration.
Microsoft: So, are you going to break us up?
DOJ: Huh?
Microsoft: You know, the anti-trust case. We were convicted, and last time we talked to the old DOJ, we were working on a remedy...
DOJ: Oh, right.
Microsoft: So, are you going to break us up?
DOJ: Why?
Microsoft: The anti-trust case, we are a convicted monopoly...
DOJ: Goodness, that seems harsh. Did you do anything wrong?
Microsoft: We were convicted... but... uh... no?
DOJ: We've been working on a new remedy proposal. We've discussed hundreds of possible penalties in high-level talks on this issue. And I assure you this our best offer. So, how does absolutely nothing sound?
Microsoft: Nothing sounds great.
DOJ: We think it's what's best for consumers.
Microsoft: So do we!!
And that is where we stand today...
Purely hypothetically, I wonder which one would be more stable....
A streaming video is worth a thousand words. Thank you, Daily Show!
Interesting fact: Hamas calls them "matyrs" to draw attention away from the fact that suicide was involved (a strict sin in Islam). So "homicide bomber" might be what they prefer to be called.
This analogy is silly. Let's also say that the thing you're looking for was purpoted to weigh hundreds of tons and need an untold amount of support hardware and shelter in order to exist. Thousands of people would have to have at least have some clue where the thing is; you've had unfettered access to these people for more than a year. And you've had 100,000 people looking for it using spy satellites and the most advanced technology we have for more than a year as well. If the weapons really do exist they must have been hidden so well that they themselves didn't know where it was.
Is there ever going to be a point where you are going to change your mind on this? Say, five years from now, will you still be holding onto this line? You'll still be able to say it then -- the argument would still be exactly the same: Iraq will still be a big country, I'm sure there will be all sorts vague signs you will be able to interpret in just the right way. What's the threshold here?
However, I have NO sympathy for the Bush administration when they are the blunt of these criticisms because of their shameless dishonesty in trying to explain what happened:
It could be that even more than average fell into this demographic for this movie, but I'd like to see some real evidence before I believe that, but otherwise this doesn't look any different than the null hypothesis to me.
It's true that Moore implied that the bin Laden family flew out when all flights were cancelled, and now some people believe it as fact.
And them someone else implies something else. Like "Makes you wonder about some of the others." Do you have any specific problems with any of the other points the parent poster made, or are you just going to imply them and perhaps believe something is there that isn't?
Also, Penn and Teller aren't exactly unbiased themselves
One of the things Moore (and in my opinion others should also be) is criticized for is implying things.
Take your post: You took criticism of his last movie, Bowling for Columbine, and then said, well obviously there are problems with Michael Moore's "movies" trying to implicitly give them impression that the criticism applies to this current movie when that is not the case.
(And 'we get comments like "The arabs aren't ready for democracy"' -- really? Whom exactly said this? Michael Moore, someone on slashdot, some generalized, extremified person you made up in your head?)
And Moore cancelled one interview on Fox News at the last minute! I'm sure this is totally out of the ordinary. People only do this when they have sinister motives. All those other times Moore has been on Fox notwithstanding, you were right to infer that he is obviously afraid to show his face on Fox where he might be criticized, even though he's been on Fox plenty on times before.