> I will stand by my assessment of Buddhism as a genuinely peaceful religion. The fact that there are some sects that have practiced violence, especially in the distant past, does not seem to me to be sufficient to change my assessment of the broader religious movement.
Then "judge not lest ye be judged"? I think most adherents of nonviolence consider the violent sects of their religions to be contrary to their religion, although you might have a point that some have shed more blood than others.
Perhaps ironically, though, I believe that Stalin & Mao still hold the record and I don't think anyone can rightfully claim that their deeds were the fault of any religion.
> I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?
See http://savetheinternet.com/ -- the telecoms are spending millions on a [dis]information campaign, they keep whining about people not being charged when the peering agreements, hosting agreements and ISP bills charge all ends of the transaction. They cite "competition" when most people have two or fewer choices for broadband... Or the "our network" bit when we paid them over $100 billion dollars recently to improve last mile connections...
So, I really have to go with "intentional distortion" on this one.
They should've given this the headling "SCO Claims to Own ELF Magic":]
It's true, if they claim the magic number, and it's a lot funnier. It also gives normal people a better idea of the actual substance of SCO's legal claims (e.g. that they're assinine)...
Only after her parents and everyone else intervened, making it a political football. The point still stands that only someone who cared about her would initiate all of that. (Note: I said *initiate*--after her parents got the ball rolling, all sorts of outsiders got involved).
While you're at it, think you can help round up the last few copies of Gigli and Battlefield Earth for incineration? Or do they not allow for hazardous waste disposal?:]
> holds a 'pro-science' speech and gets commended for it
I'm far more disturbed that politicians can label their ethical beliefs as "science" and "directly demonize" those who disagree with them as the Slashdot summary said. Dr. Mengele performed a lot of science, but how he did it was flat-out wrong, and I realize that those doing these experiments would never try to be like him. Still, I don't think we should call those who disagree with what he did "anti-science" and I disagree with the use of that phrase to exempt oneself from any ethical considerations while doing experiments, so that they might improperly silence any debate. Just because one disagrees with an arguement doesn't mean that it's stupid (although it certainly could be, one's disagreement with it is not proof of this).
Believe it or not, many people aren't against stem cells per se (let alone any other kind of science). They're against certain sources of them (abortion) and have absolutely no problem with adult stem cell research, even if they recognize the problems with the cells having different potential (merely multipotent, instead of pluripotent). Although, one might theorize that being able to use a person's own stem cells would be much more helpful than harvested ones, given that there are fewer potential rejection issues and that you don't want cells that are too able to differentiate--you want them to turn into whatever organ you're trying to regenerate, not some other random bodypart, similar to what happens in benign tumors like teratomas (the cell's ability to form a teratoma is one way to test that the cells are, in fact, pluripotent).
But that doesn't make people as easy to "demonize" so it's no wonder that people ignore such things when they're planning to run for office...
If they expect people to pay to watch what are, in essence, commercials, or even to have the "priveledge" of showing their commercials on your site, well, screw 'em:]
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go find something, anything, to pirate after the shameful and possibly illegal things they did to the Pirate Bay the other day.
You should remember to call him a "superzero" -- you can't call him a "Super-hero" [TM] because Marvel & DC jointly own the trademark on that! You'd think they'd want to *avoid* infringing a little more carefully...
In the mean time, I'm still having lots of fun linking to things that set off their stupid security system (all it requires is a ? in the URL), and Google-bombing those propaganda whores:]
> Globe and Mail likes to act like things are newsworthy, when they are not
Good point, he should be glad that all those sites come back up, so that even more children, and not merely those of one of his largest corporate supporters, can enable all of their kids to donate the maximum of $5,400 allowed under Canadian law...
Just think how much he can raise with all the mirror sites going up now!
In the mean time, it has come to my attention that the CRIA's requirements for having a.ca domain make them pretty worthless. If your registrar has to approve of whatever you put on your website and will take it down if they do not (even if it violates no actual *law*), well, why the hell would you host anything on a.ca, even if you are in Canada? There are plenty of.coms left, once you realize that you're not restricted to words you can find in the dictionary...
> You see, they were sneaky enough to use a book title... because of course as we all know... YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT A BOOK TITLE!
You *can* trademark the name Curious George [TM], however. Copyright != trademark != patent != trade secret (although a single work may still be protected by more than one of those things). You'd think they'd make sure they were slightly more scrupulous if they're trying to sell Imaginary Property (I can't rightfully call most of it "intellectual") as anything but a tool of corporate oppression.
Anyhow, Curious George is trademarked by the Houghton Mifflin Company. Not that I give a rat's ass about that, but it is. Someone should tell those propaganda whores to mark it properly:]
Obviously, you should NOT set up a cron job to constantly run cURL and request that URL over and over or their logs might fill up...
As for a Google-bomb, I can't think of anything very good, although propaganda whores has a nice ring to it and I finally have a use for this karma, because posting this with the +1 will give Slashdot's pagerank to them for that term:] I'm sure they're thrilled... Please copy & redistribute this information as much as possible:]
You are, of course, correct that he does not speak for Slashdot, however I would like to point out that there are many valid reasons for releasing full details on an unpatched hole. In particular:
* If they are taking an unreasonable amount of time to patch the hole (Microsoft often does this--l0pht bragged about making one "theoretical" hole they ignored practical) * If it is already being exploited (this is so that more knowledgeable people than the vendors can make work-arounds, e.g. as was done with that nasty WMF hole last Dec.) * Because the security reseracher feels as if they're being extorted into silence (Lynn vs. Cisco)
There are, of course, guidelines for "responsible disclosure" (trying to give the vendor a *chance* to fix it, but going public if they pull any crap) and a debate over "full disclosure" (the theory being that it forces vendors to pay attention to security... or else), but I won't get into that here.
It's far more than, as GP put it, "being a giant penis" to release these things--no one can rightfully make such a determination without analyzing the facts pertinent to the disclosure, especially all private correspondance between the researcher and the software maker.
[Rant] I want the Public Domain back sometime in my lifetime. The GPL is a means to that end, using copyright against itself, but if copyright were abolished, that would be a *good* thing to me. Yes, good. As RMS was recently quoted on Slashdot in a story about GPL version 3, the GPL derives its legal authority from copyrights, but its moral authority from the rights of the people. You lose only the right to restrict others by accident or design if you distribute or merge my source with your own (mere use of my work is explicitly *not* covered by the GPL). You remain free to make your own damn software if you don't like the conditions I and other GPL software copyright holders put on our work. [End Rant]
And for the record, I give my own work away freely.
> I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either.
Then you aren't listening. Just in case you've been living in a cave (or basement?:) here, let me clue you in to xenu.net where you can read up on what they do. Based on how Scientologists and Scientology-affiliated organizations have behaved (e.g. "Operation Snow White") I think they're evil crackpots, but they do *everything* they can with those copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and patents to silence their critics as far as I can see. How many religions own their own law firm, after all?
Frankly, this strikes me as a publicity-whoring move by ID opponents. Whatever. I'll go with the science of evolution for myself, but I don't have either the time or the vitriol to tell every poor sod I can find on the Internet something like "OMG!!! YOU ARE A STUPED MORNO WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS!!!!! DIE!!@#~!#!@#!" for daring even to ask a question, when I myself can barely explain what ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny means, or whether or not it is outdated.
Call me crazy, but I have to make rectangular selections a LOT more often than I do this SOIX stuff...
Frankly, I'd like to see them keep adding all the features they can, although I do wish that some of them were more "discoverable"--I certainly didn't realize how much was hidden behind the ctrl, alt & shift keys at first...
> IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.
Worthless. I see a few mainstream news sites that get past it. I've seen -1- oddball hackerish site slip one past Mozilla, and I use it unless I have little or no choice.
> Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.
> I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.
Then you shouldn't have spoken up. Sort by cookie is worthless. I can choose in Mozilla to have all cookies expire when I close the browser. I can also reject cookies by site. I can choose the maximum lifespan of a cookie. I can independently block 3rd party cookies. Etc. Yes, IE can do a little of this in some convoluted ways (security zones and whatnot), but it's simply not as powerful as this.
> And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.
I've *never* had something install spyware on me in Mozilla, and more than a few pages have tried. There have been a handfull of critical holes that they could've exploited in Mozilla. There have been many for IE. And I read Bugtraq, etc., so it's not like I don't keep up with the currently exploitable holes.
> Yep. Because they also sell a lot of server and development tools which make use of the internet. As such, they develop the browser to promote new technologies made available to developers...
The courts all seemed to think that Microsoft was acting anti-competitively in "cutting off their air supply" and whatnot. But they're fighting tooth and nail right now to avoid any form of collateral estoppel using the findings of fact from that case, which would open them to a world of hurt. You may remember that those findings were never overturned. But you probably don't.
> But out of curiousity. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Mozilla has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away for free?
Doesn't matter. It's free as in freedom now, and you can do whatever you damn well please with it.
But yeah, the right tool for the right job. Problem is, ActiveX and IE-only sites are about the only things it's the right tool for, and both things are a nightmare for so many reasons (accessibility issues, security issues, etc.) I don't really think IE is right for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
> I will stand by my assessment of Buddhism as a genuinely peaceful religion. The fact that there are some sects that have practiced violence, especially in the distant past, does not seem to me to be sufficient to change my assessment of the broader religious movement.
Then "judge not lest ye be judged"? I think most adherents of nonviolence consider the violent sects of their religions to be contrary to their religion, although you might have a point that some have shed more blood than others.
Perhaps ironically, though, I believe that Stalin & Mao still hold the record and I don't think anyone can rightfully claim that their deeds were the fault of any religion.
I just had a terrible vision of a new Hitchcock movie based on those flying cellphones--a remake of The Birds as The Telemarketers.
:-]
Reach out and touch someone?
> Buddhism, in contrast, is a genuinely peaceful religion, and has never succeeded in displacing Hinduism.
...
I take it you've never heard of the Sohei
You can always do what management does: you pull numbers out of your ass.
The only problem is that, unlike them, you may get held to those numbers...
No.
Because you get a faster download overall than you would have otherwise gotten, you benefit from them using BT, as does everyone else.
> I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?
See http://savetheinternet.com/ -- the telecoms are spending millions on a [dis]information campaign, they keep whining about people not being charged when the peering agreements, hosting agreements and ISP bills charge all ends of the transaction. They cite "competition" when most people have two or fewer choices for broadband... Or the "our network" bit when we paid them over $100 billion dollars recently to improve last mile connections...
So, I really have to go with "intentional distortion" on this one.
They should've given this the headling "SCO Claims to Own ELF Magic" :]
...
It's true, if they claim the magic number, and it's a lot funnier. It also gives normal people a better idea of the actual substance of SCO's legal claims (e.g. that they're assinine)
Yeah, but planet + emo == planemo :]
So they're angsty "teenage" planets wandering through dark places for no particular reason...
Only after her parents and everyone else intervened, making it a political football. The point still stands that only someone who cared about her would initiate all of that. (Note: I said *initiate*--after her parents got the ball rolling, all sorts of outsiders got involved).
This 5D cube is *so* dated.
:]
I'm waiting for the 6D version
> Can I shout "fire!" in a movie burning kiosk?
:]
Of course! I mean, it *is* burning!
While you're at it, think you can help round up the last few copies of Gigli and Battlefield Earth for incineration? Or do they not allow for hazardous waste disposal?
> Can we just let ANYONE come along and say they'll take care of her?
Yes. Who the hell is going to volunteer to take care of the near-corpse of someone they don't care about?
> holds a 'pro-science' speech and gets commended for it
I'm far more disturbed that politicians can label their ethical beliefs as "science" and "directly demonize" those who disagree with them as the Slashdot summary said. Dr. Mengele performed a lot of science, but how he did it was flat-out wrong, and I realize that those doing these experiments would never try to be like him. Still, I don't think we should call those who disagree with what he did "anti-science" and I disagree with the use of that phrase to exempt oneself from any ethical considerations while doing experiments, so that they might improperly silence any debate. Just because one disagrees with an arguement doesn't mean that it's stupid (although it certainly could be, one's disagreement with it is not proof of this).
Believe it or not, many people aren't against stem cells per se (let alone any other kind of science). They're against certain sources of them (abortion) and have absolutely no problem with adult stem cell research, even if they recognize the problems with the cells having different potential (merely multipotent, instead of pluripotent). Although, one might theorize that being able to use a person's own stem cells would be much more helpful than harvested ones, given that there are fewer potential rejection issues and that you don't want cells that are too able to differentiate--you want them to turn into whatever organ you're trying to regenerate, not some other random bodypart, similar to what happens in benign tumors like teratomas (the cell's ability to form a teratoma is one way to test that the cells are, in fact, pluripotent).
But that doesn't make people as easy to "demonize" so it's no wonder that people ignore such things when they're planning to run for office...
If they expect people to pay to watch what are, in essence, commercials, or even to have the "priveledge" of showing their commercials on your site, well, screw 'em :]
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go find something, anything, to pirate after the shameful and possibly illegal things they did to the Pirate Bay the other day.
You should remember to call him a "superzero" -- you can't call him a "Super-hero" [TM] because Marvel & DC jointly own the trademark on that! You'd think they'd want to *avoid* infringing a little more carefully...
:]
In the mean time, I'm still having lots of fun linking to things that set off their stupid security system (all it requires is a ? in the URL), and Google-bombing those propaganda whores
> Globe and Mail likes to act like things are newsworthy, when they are not
.ca domain make them pretty worthless. If your registrar has to approve of whatever you put on your website and will take it down if they do not (even if it violates no actual *law*), well, why the hell would you host anything on a .ca, even if you are in Canada? There are plenty of .coms left, once you realize that you're not restricted to words you can find in the dictionary...
Good point, he should be glad that all those sites come back up, so that even more children, and not merely those of one of his largest corporate supporters, can enable all of their kids to donate the maximum of $5,400 allowed under Canadian law...
Just think how much he can raise with all the mirror sites going up now!
In the mean time, it has come to my attention that the CRIA's requirements for having a
> You see, they were sneaky enough to use a book title... because of course as we all know... YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT A BOOK TITLE!
:]
You *can* trademark the name Curious George [TM], however. Copyright != trademark != patent != trade secret (although a single work may still be protected by more than one of those things). You'd think they'd make sure they were slightly more scrupulous if they're trying to sell Imaginary Property (I can't rightfully call most of it "intellectual") as anything but a tool of corporate oppression.
Anyhow, Curious George is trademarked by the Houghton Mifflin Company. Not that I give a rat's ass about that, but it is. Someone should tell those propaganda whores to mark it properly
Bah, if we're going to have a link that sends stupid messages to the admin, let's at least make it something a bit more fun, like http://www.captaincopyright.ca/clueless_admins?you r_mother=a+hampster&your_father=smelt+of+elderberr ies
:] I'm sure they're thrilled... Please copy & redistribute this information as much as possible :]
Obviously, you should NOT set up a cron job to constantly run cURL and request that URL over and over or their logs might fill up...
As for a Google-bomb, I can't think of anything very good, although propaganda whores has a nice ring to it and I finally have a use for this karma, because posting this with the +1 will give Slashdot's pagerank to them for that term
You are, of course, correct that he does not speak for Slashdot, however I would like to point out that there are many valid reasons for releasing full details on an unpatched hole. In particular:
* If they are taking an unreasonable amount of time to patch the hole (Microsoft often does this--l0pht bragged about making one "theoretical" hole they ignored practical)
* If it is already being exploited (this is so that more knowledgeable people than the vendors can make work-arounds, e.g. as was done with that nasty WMF hole last Dec.)
* Because the security reseracher feels as if they're being extorted into silence (Lynn vs. Cisco)
There are, of course, guidelines for "responsible disclosure" (trying to give the vendor a *chance* to fix it, but going public if they pull any crap) and a debate over "full disclosure" (the theory being that it forces vendors to pay attention to security... or else), but I won't get into that here.
It's far more than, as GP put it, "being a giant penis" to release these things--no one can rightfully make such a determination without analyzing the facts pertinent to the disclosure, especially all private correspondance between the researcher and the software maker.
> Rule of thumb: Anything that allows you to "level up" is out to fuck you, take your money, or both.
:]
Dammit, so what am I supposed to do with all this Slashdot karma now?
> Xtreme Xenocide
:(
Hey! What did I ever do to Ubuntu?
> Fact: Slashdot readers love copyright.
:) here, let me clue you in to xenu.net where you can read up on what they do. Based on how Scientologists and Scientology-affiliated organizations have behaved (e.g. "Operation Snow White") I think they're evil crackpots, but they do *everything* they can with those copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and patents to silence their critics as far as I can see. How many religions own their own law firm, after all?
No I don't. I hate it.
[Rant]
I want the Public Domain back sometime in my lifetime. The GPL is a means to that end, using copyright against itself, but if copyright were abolished, that would be a *good* thing to me. Yes, good. As RMS was recently quoted on Slashdot in a story about GPL version 3, the GPL derives its legal authority from copyrights, but its moral authority from the rights of the people. You lose only the right to restrict others by accident or design if you distribute or merge my source with your own (mere use of my work is explicitly *not* covered by the GPL). You remain free to make your own damn software if you don't like the conditions I and other GPL software copyright holders put on our work.
[End Rant]
And for the record, I give my own work away freely.
> I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either.
Then you aren't listening. Just in case you've been living in a cave (or basement?
Frankly, this strikes me as a publicity-whoring move by ID opponents. Whatever. I'll go with the science of evolution for myself, but I don't have either the time or the vitriol to tell every poor sod I can find on the Internet something like "OMG!!! YOU ARE A STUPED MORNO WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS!!!!! DIE!!@#~!#!@#!" for daring even to ask a question, when I myself can barely explain what ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny means, or whether or not it is outdated.
Call me crazy, but I have to make rectangular selections a LOT more often than I do this SOIX stuff...
Frankly, I'd like to see them keep adding all the features they can, although I do wish that some of them were more "discoverable"--I certainly didn't realize how much was hidden behind the ctrl, alt & shift keys at first...
So why not make a "dupes" department you could filter out & add all dupes and newly discovered dupes to it as they come through?
Oh, right, it would be kinda freaky seeing all the stories filtered out on the main page...
> IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.
Worthless. I see a few mainstream news sites that get past it. I've seen -1- oddball hackerish site slip one past Mozilla, and I use it unless I have little or no choice.
> Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.
> I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.
Then you shouldn't have spoken up. Sort by cookie is worthless. I can choose in Mozilla to have all cookies expire when I close the browser. I can also reject cookies by site. I can choose the maximum lifespan of a cookie. I can independently block 3rd party cookies. Etc. Yes, IE can do a little of this in some convoluted ways (security zones and whatnot), but it's simply not as powerful as this.
> And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.
I've *never* had something install spyware on me in Mozilla, and more than a few pages have tried. There have been a handfull of critical holes that they could've exploited in Mozilla. There have been many for IE. And I read Bugtraq, etc., so it's not like I don't keep up with the currently exploitable holes.
> Yep. Because they also sell a lot of server and development tools which make use of the internet. As such, they develop the browser to promote new technologies made available to developers...
The courts all seemed to think that Microsoft was acting anti-competitively in "cutting off their air supply" and whatnot. But they're fighting tooth and nail right now to avoid any form of collateral estoppel using the findings of fact from that case, which would open them to a world of hurt. You may remember that those findings were never overturned. But you probably don't.
> But out of curiousity. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Mozilla has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away for free?
Doesn't matter. It's free as in freedom now, and you can do whatever you damn well please with it.
But yeah, the right tool for the right job. Problem is, ActiveX and IE-only sites are about the only things it's the right tool for, and both things are a nightmare for so many reasons (accessibility issues, security issues, etc.) I don't really think IE is right for anything.