Most of us, myself included, believe in a God or higher power so this decision is very irritating to us. However, our constitution does say that there must be a separation between church and State.
Saying that a teacher lead pledge of allegiance, which mentions God, not to be promoting religion is a pretty hard position to defend.
I believe that prayers and pledges should be allowed into schools on a voluntary condition. However to ensure that the school does not even have the appearance of sponsoring such activities, I think it wise that teachers not be allowed to join with students in these activities.
For now, I think that we should realize the the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't have a reference to God so we should just use the original version.
"TunkeyMicket writes "It appears MSNBC is reporting that Linux has failed as an operating system. By citing the large Linux hype as reason for Linux to be dominating the market, they draw the conclusion that the "open source" alternative has flopped as an operating system. They briefly mention the success of Linux in the server community, but really the article gives Linux as little credit as possible."
-1 Flamebait for CmdrTaco.
The article is nowhere near as critical as this lead-in suggests. Sheesh Taco, a shameless troll.
Actually, many of the things that your computer would 'know' have great possibilities. The caveat is that the information about you must be under your control.
I don't believe that I could ever feel that I had complete control over my information unless I had the complete source code to the OS and all supporting programs.
As with anything of 'great potential for good' this also has 'great potential for abuse'. I think an open source solution with the ability to turn it off (and know that has really been turned off) is a much better idea.
I don't have trouble with small bills but...
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I think I need practice with really large denomination bills. If the government would just send me a bag full of VERY large denomination bills I could willing to practice.
Other than using OLE (Not a good choice.) to talk to Word I don't know of any alternatives. But it wouldn't matter anyway. I just program what I'm told. I don't get to pick the tools. If I did, we wouldn't be using any Microsoft products.
"Microsoft is seen as a necessary part of doing business, and that isn't likely to change significantly any time soon."
That is, unfortunately the reality of the situation. In the office where I work, we are so entrenched in Microsoft office products that there is NO WAY OUT!
We interface over 200 Word templates through an activeX component to a Microsoft SQL server. There are some other word processors that can access Word documents but none have a compatible VBA language and it would take a HUGE effort to migrate away. I'm not sure that we could.
Not from my ISP, not from my ISP's provider but from the absolute source. In other words, is there price gouging going on at the source?
If it really costs too much for my cable modem company to provide me with service for $45.00 per month is the reason because someone up the line is raping all of us?
Oh, I do buy books. But even so, I don't have time to read them all. It takes a lot of effort even with books to setup EVERY system that I use.
I really love Linux. It's power, flexibility and open source philosophy is wonderful. But really, business people just don't have the time to read all of the books that it takes to configure all of the various parts of a Linux server. And small businesses can't afford to hire an expert every time that they need something done.
The answer, I feel, is to have configuration tools for the complete idiots. I know I would use them!:)
"ESL is clearly designed for those who want a product that is prepackaged and ready to go out of the box."
One of the problems with setting security to paranoid is that it usually means that nothing works. Let's face it; most small businesses are not going to have a Linux guru working for them. Unless they can afford to hire a guru to come in and set things up, they will have to figure it out for themselves.
We need distros that run "out of the box" and are secure. I know my way around a Linux box fairly well but I do not consider myself a guru. For me, there are few things more frustrating than setting the security level to paranoid and having nothing work. What makes it worst yet is that rarely (if ever) will you find adequate utilities for the non-guru to properly configure a service once setting the system's security has broken that service.
This has got to change. I don't have time to be a Postfix guru and a MySQL guru and a apache guru and..... Further, I don't know what sadistic bastard wrote these manuals but they appear to all be written by one guy and maybe his brother. I am NOT a stupid person but twenty minutes of reading Linux man pages makes me want to go up to the roof and sit naked with a high powered rifle! Maybe some people can read that stuff and get a warm fuzzy feeling but I want something that I don't need a PHD to understand. Believe it or not, most of us want to spend more time using our Linux boxes than we spend trying to configure them.
"Here are the choices: If you're providing free entertainment, which is obviously what the music business is doing, then you have to figure out some way to sell advertising to the people who are paying attention to your free music. But nobody seems to have any idea how that might be done. Or you can provide stuff that's free, and use the free stuff to promote something else of more value that people, you hope, will buy -- now called the "legitimate alternative." (Putting video on the CD is one of those ideas -- though, of course, you can file-share video too.) Or sell the CD at a level that makes it cheap enough to compete with free (free, after all, has its own costs for the consumer)."
Here's a more realistic choice: You're rich, powerful, influential and arrogant. Theft of your product is rampant. You buy a Senator, say Senator Hollings from SC, and you have him draft a bill that forces all hardware and operating systems to incorporate some form of anti-coping technology. It becomes impossible to copy music/video files without hacked hardware. You make it illegal to run hacked hardware and vigorously prosecute those who have the audacity not to bow to your will.
"Kuhn stated that the FSF has long been concerned with the distribution companies' approach to free software. "Every one of these GNU/Linux companies have been including non-free software with their releases of GNU/Linux," he said, "It's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-free software."
Kuhn is making a fundamental error here. It is NOT "free software" it is "open source software."
If we look at the original intent of GNU/GLP we see that the trust is not to make the software "free" but to make the source code available. The idea is that, as a community, we can work together on software projects. In this way everyone contributes.
However, software without users is meaningless and the vast majority of the world's populations are not programmers. Most people cannot contribute by adding code to the projects. This is where the concept of open-source software gets twisted into free-software.
A lot of people who create open-source software really love programming. They love it so much so that many would do it full-time if they could. However, the reality is that these people have bills to pay, they need to buy food, cloths and pay rent. So, If they do, do it full time then they must find a way to earn a living writing their open-source code. The tight fisted, self-centered, takers who can't write code and are unwilling to voluntarily support open-source code are of no help. This unfortunately describes the vast majority of the Linux community. If your not one of these then don't be offended, there are the exceptions. If you are one of the "takers" then I don't give a damn if you're offended or not. Pick a project or two and support the people who are unselfishly giving so much to the Linux community. It's the right thing to do.
The open-source business model is not working very well due to the misunderstanding of "open-source" vs. "free" software. Working all day on code and then trying to support yourself providing support isn't working too well.
It's really time for the Linux community to step up to the plate, admit that open source is of value and support it.
It's really up to each one of us. We can voluntarily support the current open source business model or we can watch it die.
They want to push for digital only then for copy protection in ALL hardware. Then they can make you pay for each viewing of anything. Say goodbye to recording programs and fair use rights.
As Linux travels into the mainstream we will see more and more of this. I can see a day where companies such as Redhat and Mandrake will also stop offering free binaries.
Why? Because the Linux community has shown itself too immature to voluntarily support companies that support Linux. There are, of course, the exceptions but out of the millions of Linux users only a VERY SMALL percentage actually donate to the companies that support them. Most are just takers.
So, let's talk about the "spirit" of GNU/GPL. The idea was to allow others to freely take software, improve it and then put it back where everyone could benefit. Because the vast majority of people don't know how to program, it became "Free Software" instead of "Open Source Software." Most can't give back by improving the software. This shouldn't stop them from making a modest monetary donation to the people developing the software.
We cannot expect companies to sacrifice themselves to give us free products. If the current open source business model doesn't work then that model will have to be modified to allow companies who support our community to earn a living.
If we're not willing to allow the current business models to work, we shouldn't piss and moan when those models are changed.
No, I'm not seriously suggesting that you lower yourself to his level. I just feel frustrated that people can get away with what he did.
However, if as you say, there is NO POSSIBILITY of recovering damages from a frivolous lawsuit then why did you have to defend yourself from HIS frivolous lawsuit?
"Sue him for what reason? Spite? Self-inflicted torture?"
Spite. It is frustrating that low-lifes like this guy can use the legal system in this way. Even if his suit is frivolous you must mount a defense or the courts will award him a judgment. Then he comes after your assets.
If he has any personal assets then he is vulnerable to the same type of abuse of the legal system., although you may not want to lower yourself to his level. And, of course, you probably have more assets to lose than he, so you would lose if the two of you entered into a war of frivolous court actions.
Slashdot Mirror
on how long it takes someone to reverse engineer media player's automatic update feature. Oh my won't we be seeing some very interesting viri then!
Most of us, myself included, believe in a God or higher power so this decision is very irritating to us. However, our constitution does say that there must be a separation between church and State.
Saying that a teacher lead pledge of allegiance, which mentions God, not to be promoting religion is a pretty hard position to defend.
I believe that prayers and pledges should be allowed into schools on a voluntary condition. However to ensure that the school does not even have the appearance of sponsoring such activities, I think it wise that teachers not be allowed to join with students in these activities.
For now, I think that we should realize the the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't have a reference to God so we should just use the original version.
"TunkeyMicket writes "It appears MSNBC is reporting that Linux has failed as an operating system. By citing the large Linux hype as reason for Linux to be dominating the market, they draw the conclusion that the "open source" alternative has flopped as an operating system. They briefly mention the success of Linux in the server community, but really the article gives Linux as little credit as possible."
-1 Flamebait for CmdrTaco.
The article is nowhere near as critical as this lead-in suggests. Sheesh Taco, a shameless troll.
Actually, many of the things that your computer would 'know' have great possibilities. The caveat is that the information about you must be under your control.
I don't believe that I could ever feel that I had complete control over my information unless I had the complete source code to the OS and all supporting programs.
As with anything of 'great potential for good' this also has 'great potential for abuse'. I think an open source solution with the ability to turn it off (and know that has really been turned off) is a much better idea.
I think I need practice with really large denomination bills. If the government would just send me a bag full of VERY large denomination bills I could willing to practice.
I don't have a warm a fuzzy feeling about having armatures trying to lob heavy objects into space. If you think about it, it is really crazy.
If the guidance goes awry they could kill someone.
"Let's pack a big cylinder with rocket fuel and light it."
"OK, but first pass me another beer."
"You can create templates without the use of VBA. Also, VBA is not a part of Word. Word hosts VBA."
Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that if you install Word it does not give you an option not to install VBA.
Maybe you can explain how to write macros in Word without the macro language? I for one would be interested.
Other than using OLE (Not a good choice.) to talk to Word I don't know of any alternatives. But it wouldn't matter anyway. I just program what I'm told. I don't get to pick the tools. If I did, we wouldn't be using any Microsoft products.
"So does this mean that within a few more studies of stem cell research we can make ourselves immortal? "
Be honest. How many of you really want an immortal mother-in-law?
Because that is the way that you write Word templates. VBA is part of Word.
"Microsoft is seen as a necessary part of doing business, and that isn't likely to change significantly any time soon."
That is, unfortunately the reality of the situation. In the office where I work, we are so entrenched in Microsoft office products that there is NO WAY OUT!
We interface over 200 Word templates through an activeX component to a Microsoft SQL server. There are some other word processors that can access Word documents but none have a compatible VBA language and it would take a HUGE effort to migrate away. I'm not sure that we could.
If you are convicted of a felony crime try getting a license to sell real estate, own a gun, etc.
We say that they have "paid their debt" but as with so many things that people say, it's not always sincere.
"This exciting new OS delivers the stability of UNIX with the ease of Windows and the ability to run most Microsoft programs."
Maybe I'm wrong here but isn't the claim (which in on the Wal-Mart page was BOLDED) that it runs MOST Microsoft programs is false?
I haven't tried Lindows but even if it runs the most advanced WINE that statment is in error.
I'm so turned off by the lawsuit against bnetd that I just can't bring myself to support Blizzard anymore.
Nows the time to make our feelings known by NOT making a purchase.
Sorry Blizzard, great looking game but I'm passing.
...is how much does it REALLY cost for bandwidth?
Not from my ISP, not from my ISP's provider but from the absolute source. In other words, is there price gouging going on at the source?
If it really costs too much for my cable modem company to provide me with service for $45.00 per month is the reason because someone up the line is raping all of us?
Oh, I do buy books. But even so, I don't have time to read them all. It takes a lot of effort even with books to setup EVERY system that I use.
:)
I really love Linux. It's power, flexibility and open source philosophy is wonderful. But really, business people just don't have the time to read all of the books that it takes to configure all of the various parts of a Linux server. And small businesses can't afford to hire an expert every time that they need something done.
The answer, I feel, is to have configuration tools for the complete idiots. I know I would use them!
"ESL is clearly designed for those who want a product that is prepackaged and ready to go out of the box."
One of the problems with setting security to paranoid is that it usually means that nothing works. Let's face it; most small businesses are not going to have a Linux guru working for them. Unless they can afford to hire a guru to come in and set things up, they will have to figure it out for themselves.
We need distros that run "out of the box" and are secure. I know my way around a Linux box fairly well but I do not consider myself a guru. For me, there are few things more frustrating than setting the security level to paranoid and having nothing work. What makes it worst yet is that rarely (if ever) will you find adequate utilities for the non-guru to properly configure a service once setting the system's security has broken that service.
This has got to change. I don't have time to be a Postfix guru and a MySQL guru and a apache guru and..... Further, I don't know what sadistic bastard wrote these manuals but they appear to all be written by one guy and maybe his brother. I am NOT a stupid person but twenty minutes of reading Linux man pages makes me want to go up to the roof and sit naked with a high powered rifle! Maybe some people can read that stuff and get a warm fuzzy feeling but I want something that I don't need a PHD to understand. Believe it or not, most of us want to spend more time using our Linux boxes than we spend trying to configure them.
"Here are the choices:
If you're providing free entertainment, which is obviously what the music business is doing, then you have to figure out some way to sell advertising to the people who are paying attention to your free music. But nobody seems to have any idea how that might be done. Or you can provide stuff that's free, and use the free stuff to promote something else of more value that people, you hope, will buy -- now called the "legitimate alternative." (Putting video on the CD is one of those ideas -- though, of course, you can file-share video too.) Or sell the CD at a level that makes it cheap enough to compete with free (free, after all, has its own costs for the consumer)."
Here's a more realistic choice:
You're rich, powerful, influential and arrogant. Theft of your product is rampant. You buy a Senator, say Senator Hollings from SC, and you have him draft a bill that forces all hardware and operating systems to incorporate some form of anti-coping technology. It becomes impossible to copy music/video files without hacked hardware. You make it illegal to run hacked hardware and vigorously prosecute those who have the audacity not to bow to your will.
Your sales remain high. Problem solved.
"Security Through Obsolescence"
I'm not cheap, I'm security conscious... Yeah. That's the ticket....
"Kuhn stated that the FSF has long been concerned with the distribution companies' approach to free software. "Every one of these GNU/Linux companies have been including non-free software with their releases of GNU/Linux," he said, "It's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-free software."
Kuhn is making a fundamental error here. It is NOT "free software" it is "open source software."
If we look at the original intent of GNU/GLP we see that the trust is not to make the software "free" but to make the source code available. The idea is that, as a community, we can work together on software projects. In this way everyone contributes.
However, software without users is meaningless and the vast majority of the world's populations are not programmers. Most people cannot contribute by adding code to the projects. This is where the concept of open-source software gets twisted into free-software.
A lot of people who create open-source software really love programming. They love it so much so that many would do it full-time if they could. However, the reality is that these people have bills to pay, they need to buy food, cloths and pay rent. So, If they do, do it full time then they must find a way to earn a living writing their open-source code. The tight fisted, self-centered, takers who can't write code and are unwilling to voluntarily support open-source code are of no help. This unfortunately describes the vast majority of the Linux community. If your not one of these then don't be offended, there are the exceptions. If you are one of the "takers" then I don't give a damn if you're offended or not. Pick a project or two and support the people who are unselfishly giving so much to the Linux community. It's the right thing to do.
The open-source business model is not working very well due to the misunderstanding of "open-source" vs. "free" software. Working all day on code and then trying to support yourself providing support isn't working too well.
It's really time for the Linux community to step up to the plate, admit that open source is of value and support it.
It's really up to each one of us. We can voluntarily support the current open source business model or we can watch it die.
takes you to Barns & noble but I found that I can get it two bucks cheaper from Amazon.com.
Simple really.
They want to push for digital only then for copy protection in ALL hardware. Then they can make you pay for each viewing of anything. Say goodbye to recording programs and fair use rights.
As Linux travels into the mainstream we will see more and more of this. I can see a day where companies such as Redhat and Mandrake will also stop offering free binaries.
Why? Because the Linux community has shown itself too immature to voluntarily support companies that support Linux. There are, of course, the exceptions but out of the millions of Linux users only a VERY SMALL percentage actually donate to the companies that support them. Most are just takers.
So, let's talk about the "spirit" of GNU/GPL. The idea was to allow others to freely take software, improve it and then put it back where everyone could benefit. Because the vast majority of people don't know how to program, it became "Free Software" instead of "Open Source Software." Most can't give back by improving the software. This shouldn't stop them from making a modest monetary donation to the people developing the software.
We cannot expect companies to sacrifice themselves to give us free products. If the current open source business model doesn't work then that model will have to be modified to allow companies who support our community to earn a living.
If we're not willing to allow the current business models to work, we shouldn't piss and moan when those models are changed.
No, I'm not seriously suggesting that you lower yourself to his level. I just feel frustrated that people can get away with what he did.
However, if as you say, there is NO POSSIBILITY of recovering damages from a frivolous lawsuit then why did you have to defend yourself from HIS frivolous lawsuit?
"Sue him for what reason? Spite? Self-inflicted torture?"
Spite. It is frustrating that low-lifes like this guy can use the legal system in this way. Even if his suit is frivolous you must mount a defense or the courts will award him a judgment. Then he comes after your assets.
If he has any personal assets then he is vulnerable to the same type of abuse of the legal system., although you may not want to lower yourself to his level. And, of course, you probably have more assets to lose than he, so you would lose if the two of you entered into a war of frivolous court actions.
Very frustrating.