What, pray tell, is the difference between a rogue state and a superpower, apart from the fact that the latter may have nuclear weapons (or otherwise more killing power/weapons/money/...)?
SCO isn't intent on winning. The way things work is like this: Companies with a vested interest in discrediting Linux, IBM, FOSS etc. (that's Microsoft for you, as well as Sun and maybe others) pump money into SCO to keep the trial alive for as long as possible. For them, it's an investment; pay money to discredit your competitors and gain an edge in the market. The longer the trial takes, the more FUD there is, so they're interested in a long trial. SCO's executives, like McBribe etc., receive money [1] to carry out the whole thing - so they benefit, too, and the longer the trial takes, the more money they receive (so they're interested in dragging out things, too).
That's all there is to it. I'm not sure how many independent shareholders SCO has left; it may well be that there aren't enough to try to get the company back to a normal, respectable business model instead. Right now, SCO is probably just an empty shell of a company, a zombie that's only kept alive by its corporate masters (M$, Sun etc.) to do the dirty work for them.
So the only one who could put a stop to it all is the judge - but that won't happen until there *really* is convincing evidence that SCO is abusing the court system. The judge still has to assume good faith until it's bleedingly obvious what's really going on.
1. Of course, they're not paid in cash or so - they just get lucrative deals for the SCO shares they hold (held), or are otherwise paid through similar channels.
Yeah... just imagine, they might actually have to come up with something *new* instead of attempting to trademark a font cut that has been around for a long time. And all just because of those greedy EU people. About time we bomb them, right? That'll show them who's in charge of the world. Yuck yuck.
Long explanation: you're not allowed to even try to make money. The company who published the game, though, is free to (try to) milk players dry who already paid for the product *and* who already pay a monthly fee for the subscription.
Short explanation: all your money are belong to us.
The best browser in the world is developed by Opera Software, actually... and Mozilla used to be notorious for not running correctly on OpenBSD for a long time. Maybe it's different nowadays (I haven't checked in a few years), but before this donation, the Mozilla Foundation definitely didn't care much about OpenBSD, OpenSSH etc. (the projects, that is - not the software they produced).
And besides, the projects are in need of *funding*, anyway; telling them "we gave you something much better than money already" is stupid. You could just as well give a starving man a Picasso and tell him it's worth millions; it may be true, but it won't keep him from starving.
Can't speak for the grandparent, but I have donated considera bly more than 0.01% of my annual income, too. I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, and the Mozilla Foundation's donation will certainly be very welcome (I assume), but it's true that they *could* have donated more.
Ah well, at least they did donate - it's more than most other people, organisations and corporations who have benefitted from OpenSSH etc. did. (Speaking of which, have you donated yet?)
He's definitely not a cult figure, at least, that's for sure. People like RMS, Linus, John "maddog" Hall and so on are cult figures. Larry Wall is a cult figure, in a way. But Fleury? I'm pretty sure most people won't even know him; if you did a survey among FOSS developers and asked them whether they knew who Fleury is, I'd bet that 99 out of 100 wouldn't (and the last one would be one who happens to work on JBoss).
Of course, I just pulled that data out of my arse, so you shouldn't quote me on the exact figures. But seriously...
As far as child pornography and mitigating circumstances, exposure to child pornography does lead people to be more likely to molest children.
Yeah... just like watching "normal" pornography makes you more likely to rape random women on the street. Just like playing video games turn innocent teenagers into criminals who shoot cops and hookers. Just like reading Stephen King makes you a psychotic murderer. Just like watching Spongebob makes children gay.
I find child pornography as disgusting and horrible as everyone else, but I think your reasoning is more than far-fetched. At best, you're making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc mistake - it might be that people who view child pornography are more likely to abuse children (i.e., the claim makes sense, a priori - it'd still have to be investigated, though, of course), but even if it is true, I don't see why there would be a causal connection. It's much more likely that there would be another reason that led people to see children as sex objects - which in turn would lead to both an interest in child pornography and actual abuse. But someone who isn't already predisposed towards children wouldn't turn into a child abuser merely because he's exposed to child pornography.
If I looked you up and kept on showing you child pornography, would you ultimately emerge as a child abuser? Of course not. And the same is true for everyone else, too.
freenet is notorious for its "illicit" content. Not for me.
I bet you don't vote because you don't agree with all parties, either, then? That you don't read any newspapers because some might print things that offend you? That you don't use the telephone network because it's used by "criminals" to plan "illicit" acts? Maybe you should stop breathing, too; after all, terrorists breathe the same air as you.
N.B.: the last line is not meant as an "omg go kill uself" troll - like the others, it's merely meant to illustrate the absurdity of your argument.
In other words, you've crushed their ability to respond to allegations like the Gestapo.
Beep, you just lost the discussion by means of Godwin.
Well, just kidding - but you should be careful with comparisons like that. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Gestapo and similar institutions is their (near) unlimited power and the sheer amount of influence, money etc. they have at their disposal.
Your argument is just as absurd as it would be if - for example - China claimed that dissidents who don't openly talk about their opinions, ideas etc. take away the Chinese government's freedom to prosecute and kill them.
Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?
It would, if curbing terrorism really was the goal, but it isn't. The actual goals are (in no particular order):
Money
Power (including control of every aspect of people's lifes)
Terrorism is useful because it keeps the population scared. Politicians can't publicly support or endorse it, of course, but they can act in a manner that they full well know will increase terrorism. Terrorists are useless idiots at best, and paid shills doing black ops at worst.
Don't believe me? Think that people like Bush would never allow thousands of innocent people to die for his political goals? Then keep in mind that more than 2000 US soldiers (as well as, probably, a bunch of soldiers from other nations like Poland, Japan, Australia etc.) died in Iraq. Keep in mind that more than 30000 civilians died in Iraq. And keep in mind that more than 100000 people died in Afghanistan.
If politicians really cared about solving the problem, they'd take a look at how christian missionaries operate, for example. Not that I'm advocating missionary work, but you can't deny that they're successful - don't tell people that they're all a bunch of subhuman heathens, but rather set a good example; treat others as you want them to treat you, and they will do so, too. If any high-up really cared about putting an end to terrorism, they'd do this, too - and while the problem wouldn't go away immediately, it'd pretty much be history in 50 or 100 years (at least as long as people continue to respect each other).
The fact that that's not what's happening is, at the very least, evidence that what I said above is correct. Politicians aren't stupid; but if there's no possibilities outside of "stupid" and "not interested in solving the problem", then that leaves just one option.
To recap: terrorism is a useful tool. For (certain) politicians, it's like the goose that lays golden eggs - eggs of power and money. Why would they want to kill that goose?
Wikipedia: is an encyclopedia, not a help forum for computer problems. Expert's Exchange: just plain sucks. Google: is a good resource, but does not allow collaboration and two-way communication.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
OK, I'll take you up on that dare. My father underwent heart surgery a couple of years ago to get a new valve, and while it wasn't life-threatening (it's pretty much a routine thing these days), I still was very worried indeed.
But I didn't pray or say "a few words to [g]od", simply because no gods exist. There is nothing in the universe like that, and to me, the idea is just as silly as the notion that there are - say - invisible pink unicorns secretly running the world. (And given that at least judaism, christianity and islam are ultimately based on the delusions of a late Stone/early Bronze Age shepherd, that's probably not surprising, either.)
If somebody prays because it personally makes them feel better and takes away their sorrows... great, let them pray! But there are also many others who realise that praying isn't actually gonna change anything about the facts and that there's noone "listening" and who thus don't pray even when in distress. Maybe you're somewhere in between, but that doesn't mean everyone else is, too.
But those who actually *believe* in hogwash like that aren't going to be convinced by a scientific study, are they? Cognitive dissonance and stupidity are a mixture that's very difficult to overcome.
Pokémon Snap was a lovely game indeed - but you really should forgive them for requiring centered pokémon for good pictures. The game is (was) aimed at children, after all, not at professional photographers.;)
Pretty much, yes - Javascript, CSS and XML. The funny thing about this is that this is pretty close to what Tim (Berners-Lee, that is) had in mind right from the beginning - that users would actually be able to collaborate on things using the web rather than just getting a bunch of static [1] pages thrown at them.
1. "static" in the sense of not dynamically interacting with the user in an ongoing communication with the server, that is, not in the sense of "not dynamically generated by the server". Note that a page using "regular" Javascript is still a static page; there might be user interaction, but it's not usually going to communicate with the server, so all interaction is local only (akin to writing into a book you bought, for example).
Actually, TFA does not talk about the Pirate Bay at all. The only thing that comes close is the statement that copyright needs to be rebalanced and made fair again and that the Pirate Party supports a period of protection of 5 years or a similar amount.
You *can* read into that that they disapprove of the Pirate Bay. On the other hand, Rickard also mentions that non-commercial sharing should never be prohibited by copyright, and that criminalising (more than) 20% of your voters is a bad idea - not just for politicians, but also for society as a whole.
Since neither the Pirate Bay nor those sharing files there is actually operating commercially, I'd say that the Pirate Party does not disapprove of it.
But that wasn't even the original question, of course - the question was whether there's a link between the Pirate Party and the Pirate Bay, and TFA does not talk about that *at all*. However, if you check Wikipedia, you'll learn that neither the Pirate Bay nor Piratbyrån are affiliated with the Pirate Party - the only connection seems to be the fact that Mikael Viborg is both the legal advisor for the Pirate Bay and a member of the Pirate Party's interim board.
Yeah... because there are literally *no* other openings available, right? There is *no* other company in the world you can work for? Get real. The Nuremberg defense is really getting old.
Ah, cognitive dissonance at work. Don't like the fact that mp3 players are successful while your beloved MiniDisc isn't? A healthy dose of "lalala I can't hear you" will help with that, and soon you'll have yourself convinced that reality will change just be cause you want it to again...
Yes, these are real. I think the story was even posted on Slashdot last year or so (not on the 1st of April, either), but I'm not sure about that anymore - it could also have been elsewhere.
In any case... if you really want to shell out a hundred bucks for a tiny USB drive with an unusually-shaped plastic cover, you can definitely do so.;)
They would've made an offer that X couldn't refuse.
Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But they have a contract with Apple Computer, don't they? One that essentially boils down to "we allow you to use our trademarked "Apple" name, and in return, you promise to not enter the music business".
I may be misremembering things, but if that's what it's like, it seems pretty clear that Apple *has* violated the contract by starting iTunes.
That's not entirely true. Given that Apple doesn't want to play fair and share FairPlay details, they *are* using (or at least cementing) a monopoly. It's a natural thing for a company to do, of course, but you should still call a horse a horse.
Slashdot Mirror
What, pray tell, is the difference between a rogue state and a superpower, apart from the fact that the latter may have nuclear weapons (or otherwise more killing power/weapons/money/...)?
SCO isn't intent on winning. The way things work is like this: Companies with a vested interest in discrediting Linux, IBM, FOSS etc. (that's Microsoft for you, as well as Sun and maybe others) pump money into SCO to keep the trial alive for as long as possible. For them, it's an investment; pay money to discredit your competitors and gain an edge in the market. The longer the trial takes, the more FUD there is, so they're interested in a long trial. SCO's executives, like McBribe etc., receive money [1] to carry out the whole thing - so they benefit, too, and the longer the trial takes, the more money they receive (so they're interested in dragging out things, too).
That's all there is to it. I'm not sure how many independent shareholders SCO has left; it may well be that there aren't enough to try to get the company back to a normal, respectable business model instead. Right now, SCO is probably just an empty shell of a company, a zombie that's only kept alive by its corporate masters (M$, Sun etc.) to do the dirty work for them.
So the only one who could put a stop to it all is the judge - but that won't happen until there *really* is convincing evidence that SCO is abusing the court system. The judge still has to assume good faith until it's bleedingly obvious what's really going on.
1. Of course, they're not paid in cash or so - they just get lucrative deals for the SCO shares they hold (held), or are otherwise paid through similar channels.
Yeah... just imagine, they might actually have to come up with something *new* instead of attempting to trademark a font cut that has been around for a long time. And all just because of those greedy EU people. About time we bomb them, right? That'll show them who's in charge of the world. Yuck yuck.
Long explanation: you're not allowed to even try to make money. The company who published the game, though, is free to (try to) milk players dry who already paid for the product *and* who already pay a monthly fee for the subscription.
Short explanation: all your money are belong to us.
The best browser in the world is developed by Opera Software, actually... and Mozilla used to be notorious for not running correctly on OpenBSD for a long time. Maybe it's different nowadays (I haven't checked in a few years), but before this donation, the Mozilla Foundation definitely didn't care much about OpenBSD, OpenSSH etc. (the projects, that is - not the software they produced).
And besides, the projects are in need of *funding*, anyway; telling them "we gave you something much better than money already" is stupid. You could just as well give a starving man a Picasso and tell him it's worth millions; it may be true, but it won't keep him from starving.
Can't speak for the grandparent, but I have donated considera bly more than 0.01% of my annual income, too. I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, and the Mozilla Foundation's donation will certainly be very welcome (I assume), but it's true that they *could* have donated more.
Ah well, at least they did donate - it's more than most other people, organisations and corporations who have benefitted from OpenSSH etc. did. (Speaking of which, have you donated yet?)
He's definitely not a cult figure, at least, that's for sure. People like RMS, Linus, John "maddog" Hall and so on are cult figures. Larry Wall is a cult figure, in a way. But Fleury? I'm pretty sure most people won't even know him; if you did a survey among FOSS developers and asked them whether they knew who Fleury is, I'd bet that 99 out of 100 wouldn't (and the last one would be one who happens to work on JBoss).
Of course, I just pulled that data out of my arse, so you shouldn't quote me on the exact figures. But seriously...
"business intelligence"... is that the new euphemism for "corporate espionage"?
Yeah... just like watching "normal" pornography makes you more likely to rape random women on the street. Just like playing video games turn innocent teenagers into criminals who shoot cops and hookers. Just like reading Stephen King makes you a psychotic murderer. Just like watching Spongebob makes children gay.
I find child pornography as disgusting and horrible as everyone else, but I think your reasoning is more than far-fetched. At best, you're making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc mistake - it might be that people who view child pornography are more likely to abuse children (i.e., the claim makes sense, a priori - it'd still have to be investigated, though, of course), but even if it is true, I don't see why there would be a causal connection. It's much more likely that there would be another reason that led people to see children as sex objects - which in turn would lead to both an interest in child pornography and actual abuse. But someone who isn't already predisposed towards children wouldn't turn into a child abuser merely because he's exposed to child pornography.
If I looked you up and kept on showing you child pornography, would you ultimately emerge as a child abuser? Of course not. And the same is true for everyone else, too.
I bet you don't vote because you don't agree with all parties, either, then? That you don't read any newspapers because some might print things that offend you? That you don't use the telephone network because it's used by "criminals" to plan "illicit" acts? Maybe you should stop breathing, too; after all, terrorists breathe the same air as you.
N.B.: the last line is not meant as an "omg go kill uself" troll - like the others, it's merely meant to illustrate the absurdity of your argument.
Beep, you just lost the discussion by means of Godwin.
Well, just kidding - but you should be careful with comparisons like that. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Gestapo and similar institutions is their (near) unlimited power and the sheer amount of influence, money etc. they have at their disposal.
Your argument is just as absurd as it would be if - for example - China claimed that dissidents who don't openly talk about their opinions, ideas etc. take away the Chinese government's freedom to prosecute and kill them.
It would, if curbing terrorism really was the goal, but it isn't. The actual goals are (in no particular order):
Terrorism is useful because it keeps the population scared. Politicians can't publicly support or endorse it, of course, but they can act in a manner that they full well know will increase terrorism. Terrorists are useless idiots at best, and paid shills doing black ops at worst.
Don't believe me? Think that people like Bush would never allow thousands of innocent people to die for his political goals? Then keep in mind that more than 2000 US soldiers (as well as, probably, a bunch of soldiers from other nations like Poland, Japan, Australia etc.) died in Iraq. Keep in mind that more than 30000 civilians died in Iraq. And keep in mind that more than 100000 people died in Afghanistan.
If politicians really cared about solving the problem, they'd take a look at how christian missionaries operate, for example. Not that I'm advocating missionary work, but you can't deny that they're successful - don't tell people that they're all a bunch of subhuman heathens, but rather set a good example; treat others as you want them to treat you, and they will do so, too. If any high-up really cared about putting an end to terrorism, they'd do this, too - and while the problem wouldn't go away immediately, it'd pretty much be history in 50 or 100 years (at least as long as people continue to respect each other).
The fact that that's not what's happening is, at the very least, evidence that what I said above is correct. Politicians aren't stupid; but if there's no possibilities outside of "stupid" and "not interested in solving the problem", then that leaves just one option.
To recap: terrorism is a useful tool. For (certain) politicians, it's like the goose that lays golden eggs - eggs of power and money. Why would they want to kill that goose?
Well...
Wikipedia: is an encyclopedia, not a help forum for computer problems.
Expert's Exchange: just plain sucks.
Google: is a good resource, but does not allow collaboration and two-way communication.
OK, I'll take you up on that dare. My father underwent heart surgery a couple of years ago to get a new valve, and while it wasn't life-threatening (it's pretty much a routine thing these days), I still was very worried indeed.
But I didn't pray or say "a few words to [g]od", simply because no gods exist. There is nothing in the universe like that, and to me, the idea is just as silly as the notion that there are - say - invisible pink unicorns secretly running the world. (And given that at least judaism, christianity and islam are ultimately based on the delusions of a late Stone/early Bronze Age shepherd, that's probably not surprising, either.)
If somebody prays because it personally makes them feel better and takes away their sorrows... great, let them pray! But there are also many others who realise that praying isn't actually gonna change anything about the facts and that there's noone "listening" and who thus don't pray even when in distress. Maybe you're somewhere in between, but that doesn't mean everyone else is, too.
But those who actually *believe* in hogwash like that aren't going to be convinced by a scientific study, are they? Cognitive dissonance and stupidity are a mixture that's very difficult to overcome.
Pokémon Snap was a lovely game indeed - but you really should forgive them for requiring centered pokémon for good pictures. The game is (was) aimed at children, after all, not at professional photographers. ;)
Pretty much, yes - Javascript, CSS and XML. The funny thing about this is that this is pretty close to what Tim (Berners-Lee, that is) had in mind right from the beginning - that users would actually be able to collaborate on things using the web rather than just getting a bunch of static [1] pages thrown at them.
1. "static" in the sense of not dynamically interacting with the user in an ongoing communication with the server, that is, not in the sense of "not dynamically generated by the server". Note that a page using "regular" Javascript is still a static page; there might be user interaction, but it's not usually going to communicate with the server, so all interaction is local only (akin to writing into a book you bought, for example).
Actually, TFA does not talk about the Pirate Bay at all. The only thing that comes close is the statement that copyright needs to be rebalanced and made fair again and that the Pirate Party supports a period of protection of 5 years or a similar amount.
You *can* read into that that they disapprove of the Pirate Bay. On the other hand, Rickard also mentions that non-commercial sharing should never be prohibited by copyright, and that criminalising (more than) 20% of your voters is a bad idea - not just for politicians, but also for society as a whole.
Since neither the Pirate Bay nor those sharing files there is actually operating commercially, I'd say that the Pirate Party does not disapprove of it.
But that wasn't even the original question, of course - the question was whether there's a link between the Pirate Party and the Pirate Bay, and TFA does not talk about that *at all*. However, if you check Wikipedia, you'll learn that neither the Pirate Bay nor Piratbyrån are affiliated with the Pirate Party - the only connection seems to be the fact that Mikael Viborg is both the legal advisor for the Pirate Bay and a member of the Pirate Party's interim board.
Yeah... because there are literally *no* other openings available, right? There is *no* other company in the world you can work for? Get real. The Nuremberg defense is really getting old.
Ah, cognitive dissonance at work. Don't like the fact that mp3 players are successful while your beloved MiniDisc isn't? A healthy dose of "lalala I can't hear you" will help with that, and soon you'll have yourself convinced that reality will change just be cause you want it to again...
Yes, these are real. I think the story was even posted on Slashdot last year or so (not on the 1st of April, either), but I'm not sure about that anymore - it could also have been elsewhere.
;)
In any case... if you really want to shell out a hundred bucks for a tiny USB drive with an unusually-shaped plastic cover, you can definitely do so.
Don't ask me, but I'd say that it's a web server goof-up...
They would've made an offer that X couldn't refuse.
But they have a contract with Apple Computer, don't they? One that essentially boils down to "we allow you to use our trademarked "Apple" name, and in return, you promise to not enter the music business".
I may be misremembering things, but if that's what it's like, it seems pretty clear that Apple *has* violated the contract by starting iTunes.
That's not entirely true. Given that Apple doesn't want to play fair and share FairPlay details, they *are* using (or at least cementing) a monopoly. It's a natural thing for a company to do, of course, but you should still call a horse a horse.