I like the Register... you can at least tell when they are taking an editorial slant on something:) This is a little over the top, but if it was trolling that's probably how it was meant to be taken. Maybe they should have prefaced it "we were in *** fish-and-chips last night, and thought we would troll the hell out of Slashdot:)
I stand corrected. I'm agnostic, not an atheist, and I should have caught that. You're thinking about what you're responding to, and words get caught in your head even if they're not quite right.
The same applies here in the states... electrified door handles would count as "mantrapping", which is usually illegal. Here, if you feel that you have to defend yourself, you kill the attacker. This serves several purposes: first, the bad guy is dead so he isn't trying to kill you anymore. Second, the bad guy is dead so he can't sue you (although his family could). And no, you can't just shoot him in the knee because not only is that "malicious wounding", a criminal charge, but the bad guy can sue you too. The general solution is to be well armed, and if you have absolutly, beyond all doubt, NO CHOICE, then kill the son of a bitch. If you live in the UK, similar common law applies... but they don't let you have guns, so substitute "shoot" with something more civilized like "smite on the brainpan with a nail-studded bat", if that's still legal where you live. Or get a good cast iron skillet. Personally, I like my 12 gauge.
And I'm supposed to believe that this "obviously proves" something? They would be a lot more believable if they included other possible causes that they were able to DISPROVE. Smells like somebody is grasping at straws to get their grant renewed.
There is no such thing as "assured security". If a bad guy kicks in your door, rapes your wife, steals your stereo, and then blows your house up do you think you can sue the police? I don't think so. Protecting your home (and your person) is your job. Figuring out who the bad guy is and attempting to prosecute them (should you fail at YOUR job) is what the police do. Laws, in general, do very little to improve security.
No, extraordinary claims simply require extraordinary proof. Personally, I'm a humanist. See, I can see and touch them. Most people without tinfoil hats and straightjackets agree that they exist. No faith required. Oh, and by the way, a lot of the founding fathers weren't "christians" in any fundamentalist sense, they were humanists or deists. They were trying to solve problems themselves, not theorizing about what God could do. Atheism is not a religion. It is simply the lack of belief in a "supreme being", whether that be the Christian god, Buddha, or those wacky little green men hiding their UFO behind a comet.
I'm hoping that this is a joke. More likely the Register arcticle is a troll, intended to cause Slashdot to get it's panties in a wad. Or maybe he hit the pub a little hard before he started writing:) I vote for troll.
Space travel comes to mind... What if it's possible to freeze someone BEFORE they die? And what if that's easier than getting a spacecraft going faster than the speed of light (and having the crew survive the experience)?
Ok, here's another question: what possible motivation would a future society have freeze people? Space travel, anyone? That is of course assuming the rebuiding a frozen human is easier than faster-than-light space travel.
It was obviously intended to be creative, humorous, and make a couple of key points along the way. A lot of posts seem to be taking this way too seriously. HE'S A WRITER. He's not trying to be a visionary; he's trying to entertain you and get you to think. And judging by the number of posts on this, he succeeded:)
I agree... I enjoyed the read, and you're right on target about the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship. The guy's a writer, not a coder, he says so himself. A writer's job is to make the readers think, preferably in a way that gives them a different take on the way the readers usually see things. This is creative writing, not a politcal manifesto. Jeez, it's not like RMS gave this speech. Lighten up, people.
Then most consumers don't drink Guinness, which is my beer of choice. I'll bet that I could identify my brand... all I'd have to do is find the one that didn't taste like sugar water with some "natural hops flavoring" added to the mix. If you're going to drink beer, drink BEER. If you're going to smoke, smoke something UNFILTERED. Hey, it's all bad for you so you may as well enjoy it. I feel sorry for guys drinking Miller Lite because real beer might make them fat.
Like Salon? I HATE those damn things. Even when Slashdot links to them, I wind up asking myself "why am I sitting through this crap? Why does it take this long? Do they really think that I read so slowly that I couldn't have read it 30 seconds ago?" Sometimes, I'll admit, I wait so that I can read the article. Even if I do wait, I wouldn't associate the add and the product it's hyping with anything but raging annoyance. Either most consumers are stupid, or I'm an especially irratible consumer, or advertisers are morons. Take your pick; maybe all three:) End of rant, no sig.
Re:As a responsible manager I'd
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 2
Actually, Microsoft is backing down from some of their "TCO" claims of late. From the Reg:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26230.h tml
OK, HP backed down. So what? If this really was a DMCA violation, what's going to stop the feds from filing charges? Nothing as far as I can tell. Maybe they just didn't want Adobe's publicity problem... "no, really, your honor, the FBI arrested those people all on their own".
Except that they at least thought about it... and the DMCA is a LAW, not a company policy. Once HP cries wolf, what's to stop a creative procecutor from bringing charges?
The only backed down becuase continuing on this path would have convinced all the conspiracy theorists that they have something to hide. Doing something stupid made them look bad, therefore they quit. Nothing to see here.
Do you see anything improving there? Do you see anything improving significantly in the next, say, 20 years? I'd call 2022 the "future" if I were starving, I don't think things will change much. We'll be shipping them food until the people get rid of the "big man" and decide to create a real democracy. You may have reason to disagree, but I'd put money on it. Want to meet up on Slashdot in 20 years and compare notes?
Ok, again: Zimbabwe doesn't have much of value. They HAD a good agricultural base, which the government confiscated and hasn't done anything with, but at least they could eat the results (and have a surplus). They also have minerals. You can eat corn, you can't eat rocks. Which would you export? Sounds like they want to export both... maybe Mugabe figures he has a surplus of citizens, not a food deficiancy...
Ok, let me repeat: If they're starving, how the hell do they export food? With all of their problems, does anyone really think that they will have a surplus anytime soon? Remember, this is the country that just confiscated all of the farmland and ran off the only people able (at the moment) to make that land productive. Food EXPORTS should be the last thing that they're worried about at this point. Mugabe isn't really all that rational, and this is a good example. It has very little to do with GM food, and everything to do with a megalomaniac who hasn't done anything for the people he rules.
They are starving due to "drought and political mismanagement". In other words, they don't have enough food to feed themselves. However, the food that could feed them is not politically correct in the EU, therefore they couldn't sell it (or its proginy if planted) in Europe. So, they would rather let half their population starve rather than at some point become the breadbasket of Europe... now it's all making sense! The government doesn't want to feed their people, they want to resell the food and buy new cars, if you're really cynical. If you're not then this makes very little sense. Starve or not? I bet the people that are starving (as opposed to the people making the decisions) would have a very different take on this if they were allowed to express it.
Yeah, Bellsouth has the same kind of policy. Allthough they don't really come after you (so far) unless you abuse it. Try calling fastaccess for a client who wants to run a server... they told me that "it's against our rules, we can disconnect you if we catch you, but we don't try very hard". I had to get a manager on the line before the admitted that servers are allowed on business accounts (why else would I want a nailed I.P.?). Then again, they have the same people answering the phone for business and home accounts... they just pick up faster when you hit "press two if this you are calling about a business account". Of course, you can only get business DSL on a business phone line, so for the same service and same tech support you really wind up paying 4-6 times as much JUST to get a nailed I.P. How do you explain that to a client? Gotta love tiered service!
On the other hand, I really hope that you wouldn't sign anything that said when you could drive a car that you paid for. And how do you think the manufacturer would enforce that? Your local PD?
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't these the same stooges who always vote for gun control? Just a thought.
I like the Register... you can at least tell when they are taking an editorial slant on something :) This is a little over the top, but if it was trolling that's probably how it was meant to be taken. Maybe they should have prefaced it "we were in *** fish-and-chips last night, and thought we would troll the hell out of Slashdot :)
I stand corrected. I'm agnostic, not an atheist, and I should have caught that. You're thinking about what you're responding to, and words get caught in your head even if they're not quite right.
The same applies here in the states... electrified door handles would count as "mantrapping", which is usually illegal. Here, if you feel that you have to defend yourself, you kill the attacker. This serves several purposes: first, the bad guy is dead so he isn't trying to kill you anymore. Second, the bad guy is dead so he can't sue you (although his family could). And no, you can't just shoot him in the knee because not only is that "malicious wounding", a criminal charge, but the bad guy can sue you too. The general solution is to be well armed, and if you have absolutly, beyond all doubt, NO CHOICE, then kill the son of a bitch. If you live in the UK, similar common law applies... but they don't let you have guns, so substitute "shoot" with something more civilized like "smite on the brainpan with a nail-studded bat", if that's still legal where you live. Or get a good cast iron skillet. Personally, I like my 12 gauge.
And I'm supposed to believe that this "obviously proves" something? They would be a lot more believable if they included other possible causes that they were able to DISPROVE. Smells like somebody is grasping at straws to get their grant renewed.
There is no such thing as "assured security". If a bad guy kicks in your door, rapes your wife, steals your stereo, and then blows your house up do you think you can sue the police? I don't think so. Protecting your home (and your person) is your job. Figuring out who the bad guy is and attempting to prosecute them (should you fail at YOUR job) is what the police do. Laws, in general, do very little to improve security.
No, extraordinary claims simply require extraordinary proof. Personally, I'm a humanist. See, I can see and touch them. Most people without tinfoil hats and straightjackets agree that they exist. No faith required. Oh, and by the way, a lot of the founding fathers weren't "christians" in any fundamentalist sense, they were humanists or deists. They were trying to solve problems themselves, not theorizing about what God could do. Atheism is not a religion. It is simply the lack of belief in a "supreme being", whether that be the Christian god, Buddha, or those wacky little green men hiding their UFO behind a comet.
I'm hoping that this is a joke. More likely the Register arcticle is a troll, intended to cause Slashdot to get it's panties in a wad. Or maybe he hit the pub a little hard before he started writing :) I vote for troll.
Space travel comes to mind... What if it's possible to freeze someone BEFORE they die? And what if that's easier than getting a spacecraft going faster than the speed of light (and having the crew survive the experience)?
Ok, here's another question: what possible motivation would a future society have freeze people? Space travel, anyone? That is of course assuming the rebuiding a frozen human is easier than faster-than-light space travel.
It was obviously intended to be creative, humorous, and make a couple of key points along the way. A lot of posts seem to be taking this way too seriously. HE'S A WRITER. He's not trying to be a visionary; he's trying to entertain you and get you to think. And judging by the number of posts on this, he succeeded :)
Please do... reading it was interesting, but I'd like to hear it even more. Just make sure it's in a format that I can hear on my Redhat box :)
I agree... I enjoyed the read, and you're right on target about the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship. The guy's a writer, not a coder, he says so himself. A writer's job is to make the readers think, preferably in a way that gives them a different take on the way the readers usually see things. This is creative writing, not a politcal manifesto. Jeez, it's not like RMS gave this speech. Lighten up, people.
Then most consumers don't drink Guinness, which is my beer of choice. I'll bet that I could identify my brand... all I'd have to do is find the one that didn't taste like sugar water with some "natural hops flavoring" added to the mix. If you're going to drink beer, drink BEER. If you're going to smoke, smoke something UNFILTERED. Hey, it's all bad for you so you may as well enjoy it. I feel sorry for guys drinking Miller Lite because real beer might make them fat.
Like Salon? I HATE those damn things. Even when Slashdot links to them, I wind up asking myself "why am I sitting through this crap? Why does it take this long? Do they really think that I read so slowly that I couldn't have read it 30 seconds ago?" Sometimes, I'll admit, I wait so that I can read the article. Even if I do wait, I wouldn't associate the add and the product it's hyping with anything but raging annoyance. Either most consumers are stupid, or I'm an especially irratible consumer, or advertisers are morons. Take your pick; maybe all three :) End of rant, no sig.
Actually, Microsoft is backing down from some of their "TCO" claims of late. From the Reg:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26230.h tml
OK, HP backed down. So what? If this really was a DMCA violation, what's going to stop the feds from filing charges? Nothing as far as I can tell. Maybe they just didn't want Adobe's publicity problem... "no, really, your honor, the FBI arrested those people all on their own".
Except that they at least thought about it... and the DMCA is a LAW, not a company policy. Once HP cries wolf, what's to stop a creative procecutor from bringing charges?
The only backed down becuase continuing on this path would have convinced all the conspiracy theorists that they have something to hide. Doing something stupid made them look bad, therefore they quit. Nothing to see here.
Do you see anything improving there? Do you see anything improving significantly in the next, say, 20 years? I'd call 2022 the "future" if I were starving, I don't think things will change much. We'll be shipping them food until the people get rid of the "big man" and decide to create a real democracy. You may have reason to disagree, but I'd put money on it. Want to meet up on Slashdot in 20 years and compare notes?
Ok, again: Zimbabwe doesn't have much of value. They HAD a good agricultural base, which the government confiscated and hasn't done anything with, but at least they could eat the results (and have a surplus). They also have minerals. You can eat corn, you can't eat rocks. Which would you export? Sounds like they want to export both... maybe Mugabe figures he has a surplus of citizens, not a food deficiancy...
Ok, let me repeat: If they're starving, how the hell do they export food? With all of their problems, does anyone really think that they will have a surplus anytime soon? Remember, this is the country that just confiscated all of the farmland and ran off the only people able (at the moment) to make that land productive. Food EXPORTS should be the last thing that they're worried about at this point. Mugabe isn't really all that rational, and this is a good example. It has very little to do with GM food, and everything to do with a megalomaniac who hasn't done anything for the people he rules.
They are starving due to "drought and political mismanagement". In other words, they don't have enough food to feed themselves. However, the food that could feed them is not politically correct in the EU, therefore they couldn't sell it (or its proginy if planted) in Europe. So, they would rather let half their population starve rather than at some point become the breadbasket of Europe... now it's all making sense! The government doesn't want to feed their people, they want to resell the food and buy new cars, if you're really cynical. If you're not then this makes very little sense. Starve or not? I bet the people that are starving (as opposed to the people making the decisions) would have a very different take on this if they were allowed to express it.
Yeah, Bellsouth has the same kind of policy. Allthough they don't really come after you (so far) unless you abuse it. Try calling fastaccess for a client who wants to run a server... they told me that "it's against our rules, we can disconnect you if we catch you, but we don't try very hard". I had to get a manager on the line before the admitted that servers are allowed on business accounts (why else would I want a nailed I.P.?). Then again, they have the same people answering the phone for business and home accounts... they just pick up faster when you hit "press two if this you are calling about a business account". Of course, you can only get business DSL on a business phone line, so for the same service and same tech support you really wind up paying 4-6 times as much JUST to get a nailed I.P. How do you explain that to a client? Gotta love tiered service!
On the other hand, I really hope that you wouldn't sign anything that said when you could drive a car that you paid for. And how do you think the manufacturer would enforce that? Your local PD?