What's the difference? I can't get Windows applications to *work* with windows. Sure... they load and run for a while... but they inevitably crash. A program that *works* doesn't *crash*.
I suspect that before we can get Windows applications to work under any emulator that runs on a non-Windows o/s, we must first get the Windows application to *work* under Windows.
In my lifetime, I've attended Wards in California, Idaho and Utah. My experience has been that many attendees call themselves "Mormon" or "LDS" but few actually know what it means, much less live by it.
It's my experience that at least 80% of the "Mormons" who attend Church are not Mormon in the true sense of the word. Many come only for Sacrament, and then leave (failing to attend Priesthood meetings or Church History meetings). Many who do attend give no public service (as is encouraged by the Church and required for the highest level of salvation). Few, if any, help their fellow man. Even fewer host dinners for the missionaries (as you are encouraged to do).
Most Mormons view non-Mormons as religiously inferior, due to the fact that other religions are considered "the whores of Babylon" and those practicing said religions are considered apostate, an abomination and worse (excellent link).
Does going on a mission change how non-mormons are viewed, according to official Church doctrine? I think not.
Well, unlike the religions which have been around for ages (Christianity, Judaism, etc), Mormonism was born in the early 1800's. In addition, some of the original (founding) documents of Mormonism are still available for examination.
Thus, it is easier to examine Mormonism than some of the older religions.
Look here for a more complete history of the "bloops and blunders" of Mormonism.
I don't mind being "out there" as you characterize it, as long as my opinion is supported by fact. Hence, a little research will show you that:
1) Mormonism is not rooted in Christianity. For further clarification, see this link.
2) You obfuscate the issue, by stating that "blacks were always allowed in the Church." The question was whether or not the Church discriminated against blacks. The Church obviously has a long history of discriminating against, and maligning, blacks. For further information, see this link. Don't be surprised at the racist and hateful statements LDS apostles (who speak for God) have made against blacks throughout history.
I stated that Joseph Smith (founder of the Church) introduced and practiced polyandry (multiple wives and husbands), not polygamy (multiple wives for a single husband). You state erroneously that "there were never multiple men to one woman." Yet eight (8) of the thirty three (33) marriages of Joseph Smith were of this type! I suggest you check this link for supporting facts.
Likewise, everything in the temple is not documented. In fact, Mormon literature teaches us that "some things in the temple are sacred, and not to be revealed to outsiders." For an overview, see this link. For an overview of how the ceremony has changed over time, you can go here.
To address your next statement... yes, there are some racist people everywhere. But that wasn't the issue, or in question. I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning this. The fact that Mormons have a dark history with black people (no pun intended) is not exculpated by other examples of racism, rampant or otherwise.
You also state that "at no time did the leadership ever say black people had the mark of Cain." Again, you are incorrect. Plenty of LDS prophets (who speak for God) have told us so, as you can see for yourself right here. For a history of the black man and Mormonism in general, you can go here.
So far, your contentions are without merit. If you have evidence to present that is contrary to my researched opinion, please feel free to cite your sources, as I have done. I'm always open to assimilating new facts, and learning new things.
You are basically correct... but only if you properly qualify your statement, as follows:
"And they have never had a history of being racists... except when they're being blatantly racist."
See THIS LINK for one such example, in which even Nichelle Nickels (Lt. Uhura from Star Trek) found herself discriminated against and had to leave town because the local Salt Lake hotels would not rent a room to a BLACK PERSON.
I beg to differ. You make it sound as if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has opened up its archives to everyone. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The Church has opened up only those sections of its archives which are not materially damaging to it. Other archives, such as the private letters between early Mormon leaders, are kept confidential. Only a handful of people have seen them, that viewing being mostly limited to Official Church Historians.
Your statement also leads one to believe that the Church has produced documents which explain everything that goes on inside the temples. Again, this is false and misleading. The Church has revealed only an edited version of what goes on inside the temple... editing history in the process.
These days, when discussing the origins of the ceremonies, it fails to reveal things such as Blood Atonement, the influence of the Masons, and selectively deletes portions of history which would otherwise be an embarrassment to the Church and negatively impact its recruitment efforts.
You also state that the Mormons have never had a history of being racists. I suggest you do a bit of basic research, and read History of the Church. You will find that until 1978, blacks were not allowed to hold any office in the Church, and were specifically thought of as inferior... this coming directly from Church apostles... who "speak on behalf of God":
"Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES." -- LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church
Your final point, regarding the "polygamy crap," is also without basis. The practice of polygamy, err... polyandry (multiple wives, who also have multiple husbands) was introduced by Joseph Smith in a Revelation from God. Tell me... who is the founder of "your" Church... since you say they are not the same Church? If it's Joseph Smith, then we are correct in stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) has its roots in polyandry/polygamy, and that the founder (prophet, seer and revelator) of this Church, who "restored" this only true Church, is the original prophet in which the current Church is based.
I beg to differ.
You make it sound as if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has opened up its archives to everyone. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Church has opened up only those sections of its archives which are not materially damaging to it. Other archives, such as the private letters between early Mormon leaders, are kept confidential. Only a handful of people have seen them, that viewing being mostly limited to Official Church Historians.
Your statement also leads one to believe that the Church has produced documents which explain everything that goes on inside the temples. Again, this is false and misleading. The Church has revealed only an edited version of what goes on inside the temple... editing history in the process. These days, when discussing the origins of the ceremonies, it fails to reveal things such as Blood Atonement, the influence of the Masons, and selectively deletes portions of history which would otherwise be an embarrassment to the Church and negatively impact its recruitment efforts.
You also state that the Mormons have never had a history of being racists. I suggest you do a bit of basic research, and read History of the Church. You will find that until 1978, blacks were not allowed to hold any office in the Church, and were specifically thought of as inferior... this coming directly from Church apostles... who "speak on behalf of God":
"Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church
Your final point, regarding the "polygamy crap," is also without basis. The practice of polygamy, err... polyandry (multiple wives, who also have multiple husbands) was introduced by Joseph Smith in a Revelation from God. Tell me... who is the founder of "your" Church... since you say they are not the same Church? If it's Joseph Smith, then we are correct in stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) has its roots in polyandry/polygamy, and that the founder (prophet, seer and revelator) of this Church, who "restored" this only true Church, is the original prophet in which the current Church is based.
I'd be happy to help clarify some of these similarities, while correcting some of your statements in the process.
The Mormon/LDS theology is about Joseph Smith, who was able to translate "golden plates" he found buried in the forest (using a seer stone, similar to a divining rod, mind you) and thus wrote the Book of Mormon. One section in the Book of Mormon is the Book of Abraham, again translated by Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian Papyrus purchased from a travelling huckster.
Science, namely Egyptologists, have clearly shown that Joseph Smith's translation of these documents (which were shown to be ancient burial scrolls and not an account of the life of Abraham) was not only inaccurate but also fradulent.
Among the things that we Mormons believe is that Adam (from Adam and Eve) is actually God (see the talks by former prophet and seer Brigham Young), that flesh-and-blood people like you and I (not spirits, mind you) inhabit our moon and sun (ibid) and that all other religions are "an abomination upon the face of the Earth" and their practitioners are "whores from Babylon" (History of the Church, Book of Mormon, Gospel Principals).
Mormonism has never paralleled, nor has anything in common with, traditional Christianity. The God of Mormonism is different than the God of Christianity, even though the same nomenclature is used to describe Him. Mormonism believes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distince and separate entities, as opposed to the traditional views of Christianity. Mormonism believes there are three "kingdoms" of heaven which you must qualify for... belief alone is not enough to obtain the ultimate salvation.
Salvation in Christianity is based on faith and belief; works being the result of this. In Mormonism, it is based on works... you must do everything you can, or you will not achieve the ultimate salvation.
In Mormonism, if you are not temple-worthy, you will not be entitled to the highest form of salvation. In the temple, you will learn what amount to secret handshakes as you swear an oath to keep this to yourself. In the past, you had to swear an oath to Blood Atonement (... or let my throat be slit, where I shall bleed to death as punishment) (Biography of Brigham Young)... but now, to be politically correct, the Church changed it to something more people will accept.
In the Church, women are not equal. They cannot hold priesthood office, they are not entitled to the keys to the priesthood, cannot bless their family, and are not treated as equals. It is an interesting culture, accentuated by the individual quirks of different communities and States.
Overall, I've found it a fascinating community of people who otherwise wish to do good, but are kept ignorant of the true history of their Church and of their religion.
The current (Feb 2004) issue of Consumer Reports, which deals with cellphones, tends to agree with you... people are tired of all the "frills" and just want a device that performs its basic function well.
Interestingly enough, many of the cellphones on the market today do an incredibly poor job of carrying out a conversation. They tend to have a crappy microphone, low sensitivity and often a less than friendly function navigation system.
It's kind of like taking a step back into the past, when programmers needed books to teach them how to design a successful user interface.
In what state can one garnish wages for civil judgements? In just about any state - otherwise, civil judgements would have no teeth and nobody would use them.
As for your short-sighted suggestion that he transfer all non-liened assets over to his spouse and file for chapter 7, do you really think you're the first brilliant genius to think of such a thing? The law provides remedies for actions taken to hide assets, especially if a lawsuit is pending. I suggest he NOT take these actions, as it will cast him in a bad light before the court.
I'm truly amazed at how much damaging information know-nothing armchair experts put out in response to serious matters. Perhaps, after you've been sued in both Federal and State courts several times, you'll learn the hard way.
Hey fool... we're in techo-land here. ATM can mean "Asynchronous Transfer Mode." Personally, I'm glad he clarified it via redundancy. No need to guess or read further, even during an alcoholic binge.
It doesn't surprise me at all. My testimony before the Nevada PUC regarding manipulating SS7 packets was cancelled last year. Instead, they held it with the lawyers, who argued the packets could not be altered or tampered with. Even after my phone call to them, in which I manipulated the CLID packet, they still ignored the obvious. It took other giants (phone companies, in this case) to finally bring this beast to the public's attention. Now, perhaps, the PUC will also look at what they dismissed with disdain last year.
Please don't be so naive, to the point where you are spreading false hope. Prepaid legal plans do very little for you. Yes, they're fine for when you need a lawyer to write your noisy neighbor a letter, or to call and threaten your mechanic with a lawsuit if he won't release your car. But beyond that, they're "paper-mill" lawyers.
Read your contract carefully... and you'll find they will "refer" you to an expert should a case get ugly (require serious litigation)... at a "reduced" rate. You'll still be paying hundreds of dollars an hour, and require a hefty retainer up-front, as well as all costs advanced.
Don't ever bother with a prepaid legal plan. It isn't worth the contract it's written on.
"To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?"
It feels fine, wee-wee boy. Just as with software and shrink-wrap licenses, I buy music and movies, and I agree to the terms of use. Such things must be a great nuisance to those who enjoy pirating software - because obviously your attitude is in keeping with that of the liberal hippies who think everything should be free.
In short, we are free to choose what we want to buy or not buy. Exercising that choice, in a way which tweaks your collar, should not subject us to pathetic insult from those who disagree with us.
80 lines is more than is needed to establish the claim, which then entitles SCO to disgorgement of profits and treble damages.
I can see the plaintiffs speaking now, "But your honor... we only copied.001% of the code... we should not be found guilty of copying their code!"
followed by, "... and plaintiff, tell me... does that.001% that you copied belong to SCO?"... followed by, "Uhhh... uhhh... yea, but the folks on slashdot don't really care about that...."
That's not at issue here, mental midget. What is at issue is the theft and misuse of intellectual property. One thing SCO will ask for is disgorgement of profits, along with treble damages. I suggest you learn what those terms mean, and how the courts have applied them lately in other intellectual property cases, before typing more of those thoughts you pawn off as intellectual fodder.
You're a short-sighted idiot, too. Boy, I am certainly finding my share of mindless fools in this particular story.
It's not about any decent programmer writing 80 lines of code -- that won't cure the damage already done by distributing proprietary code. You will also be hard pressed to have a programmer replace those lines of code, under a "clean-room" environment. Don't know what that means, as it pertains to intellectual property, geek boy? Better find out.
How do you get "us" to buy a license? Well, I would not expect a software thief to purchase a license. Especially not when he can justify, in his own mind, excuses for not doing so... "I modified the code, I shouldn't have to obtain a license for the base code that I started with!"
Why bother licensing any music, either? After all, you "modified" it into a new format (MP3). You shouldn't have to pay for that, should you?
You're right... there would be a lot of comments from both sources that have the word "SCO" and "Santa Cruz Operations" in them.
Why didn't I think of that?
Better yet, perhaps you should tip off the defendants, and they can argue that in court. Maybe you'll win a booby prize. After all, you're quite a gifted thinker.
You're a stupid and childish little shit-head. I am always amazed at the crap-heads that infest this and other forums.
Why don't you try doing something positive, for a change. Just because you don't like the fact that a company is making use of the legal process to protect its intellectual rights doesn't mean you need to encourage others to cause damage.
What about legitimate people who want to make use of their products? It's idiots like you, who haven't a clue as to the ramifications or repercussions of their stupid actions, that cause others needless grief and suffering.
Get your basic comprehension skills straight, geek boy...
"The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system."
They didn't say it was based on Linux, you mental midget. They said it was just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system. It's in the same league as Linux when it comes to vulnerabilities. Is that so difficult for your programmatic little mind to comprehend?
They don't have to prove anything to the Linux community, you moron. Though you'd like to think of yourselves as Gods, you're just a flock of fools, who baste in the comfort of having other fools for company. All SCO has to do is prove (not even beyond a reasonable doubt) in court that their code was copied. I've got news for you drummer boy... the jury doesn't give a shit what you or the Linux community think. When the time comes, I'm sure SCO will have one of its code geeks file a declaration stating that he/she wrote the code themselves. At that point, it's up to the defense to prove otherwise. You people are so blind... so narrow-minded... so brainwashed.
You're full of shit, too. The complaint sounding in tort (the lawsuit, for you dummies) will be very clear as to what the infringements are. SCO has not contradicted itself, because when it comes to legal action, only the complaint can speak for SCO. Get a grip, you jerky little kids.
You're a fruitcake. SCO isn't on trial here... and the "honesty" of their actions is not at issue. The issue is: Did they steal source code from SCO, comments and all. So far, that appears to be the case.
Just because you don't like SCO, or you don't like the way they dress or how they handle the lawsuit doesn't change the facts of the case.
Get a grip on reality. Better yet, get some noise filters in your life, and turn them on. Maybe you'll become a more objective person.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the difference? I can't get Windows applications to *work* with windows. Sure... they load and run for a while... but they inevitably crash. A program that *works* doesn't *crash*.
I suspect that before we can get Windows applications to work under any emulator that runs on a non-Windows o/s, we must first get the Windows application to *work* under Windows.
But that's just one man's opinion.
What is your definition of a "real Mormon?"
In my lifetime, I've attended Wards in California, Idaho and Utah. My experience has been that many attendees call themselves "Mormon" or "LDS" but few actually know what it means, much less live by it.
It's my experience that at least 80% of the "Mormons" who attend Church are not Mormon in the true sense of the word. Many come only for Sacrament, and then leave (failing to attend Priesthood meetings or Church History meetings). Many who do attend give no public service (as is encouraged by the Church and required for the highest level of salvation). Few, if any, help their fellow man. Even fewer host dinners for the missionaries (as you are encouraged to do).
Most Mormons view non-Mormons as religiously inferior, due to the fact that other religions are considered "the whores of Babylon" and those practicing said religions are considered apostate, an abomination and worse (excellent link).
Does going on a mission change how non-mormons are viewed, according to official Church doctrine? I think not.
Well, unlike the religions which have been around for ages (Christianity, Judaism, etc), Mormonism was born in the early 1800's. In addition, some of the original (founding) documents of Mormonism are still available for examination.
Thus, it is easier to examine Mormonism than some of the older religions.
Look here for a more complete history of the "bloops and blunders" of Mormonism.
I don't mind being "out there" as you characterize it, as long as my opinion is supported by fact. Hence, a little research will show you that:
1) Mormonism is not rooted in Christianity. For further clarification, see this link.
2) You obfuscate the issue, by stating that "blacks were always allowed in the Church." The question was whether or not the Church discriminated against blacks. The Church obviously has a long history of discriminating against, and maligning, blacks. For further information, see this link. Don't be surprised at the racist and hateful statements LDS apostles (who speak for God) have made against blacks throughout history.
I stated that Joseph Smith (founder of the Church) introduced and practiced polyandry (multiple wives and husbands), not polygamy (multiple wives for a single husband). You state erroneously that "there were never multiple men to one woman." Yet eight (8) of the thirty three (33) marriages of Joseph Smith were of this type! I suggest you check this link for supporting facts.
Likewise, everything in the temple is not documented. In fact, Mormon literature teaches us that "some things in the temple are sacred, and not to be revealed to outsiders." For an overview, see this link. For an overview of how the ceremony has changed over time, you can go here.
To address your next statement... yes, there are some racist people everywhere. But that wasn't the issue, or in question. I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning this. The fact that Mormons have a dark history with black people (no pun intended) is not exculpated by other examples of racism, rampant or otherwise.
You also state that "at no time did the leadership ever say black people had the mark of Cain." Again, you are incorrect. Plenty of LDS prophets (who speak for God) have told us so, as you can see for yourself right here. For a history of the black man and Mormonism in general, you can go here.
So far, your contentions are without merit. If you have evidence to present that is contrary to my researched opinion, please feel free to cite your sources, as I have done. I'm always open to assimilating new facts, and learning new things.
You are basically correct... but only if you properly qualify your statement, as follows:
"And they have never had a history of being racists... except when they're being blatantly racist."
See THIS LINK for one such example, in which even Nichelle Nickels (Lt. Uhura from Star Trek) found herself discriminated against and had to leave town because the local Salt Lake hotels would not rent a room to a BLACK PERSON.
Mormons aren't racist... and the Earth is flat.
I beg to differ. You make it sound as if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has opened up its archives to everyone. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The Church has opened up only those sections of its archives which are not materially damaging to it. Other archives, such as the private letters between early Mormon leaders, are kept confidential. Only a handful of people have seen them, that viewing being mostly limited to Official Church Historians.
Your statement also leads one to believe that the Church has produced documents which explain everything that goes on inside the temples. Again, this is false and misleading. The Church has revealed only an edited version of what goes on inside the temple... editing history in the process.
These days, when discussing the origins of the ceremonies, it fails to reveal things such as Blood Atonement, the influence of the Masons, and selectively deletes portions of history which would otherwise be an embarrassment to the Church and negatively impact its recruitment efforts.
You also state that the Mormons have never had a history of being racists. I suggest you do a bit of basic research, and read History of the Church. You will find that until 1978, blacks were not allowed to hold any office in the Church, and were specifically thought of as inferior... this coming directly from Church apostles... who "speak on behalf of God":
"Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES." -- LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church
Your final point, regarding the "polygamy crap," is also without basis. The practice of polygamy, err... polyandry (multiple wives, who also have multiple husbands) was introduced by Joseph Smith in a Revelation from God. Tell me... who is the founder of "your" Church... since you say they are not the same Church? If it's Joseph Smith, then we are correct in stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) has its roots in polyandry/polygamy, and that the founder (prophet, seer and revelator) of this Church, who "restored" this only true Church, is the original prophet in which the current Church is based.
I beg to differ. You make it sound as if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has opened up its archives to everyone. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Church has opened up only those sections of its archives which are not materially damaging to it. Other archives, such as the private letters between early Mormon leaders, are kept confidential. Only a handful of people have seen them, that viewing being mostly limited to Official Church Historians. Your statement also leads one to believe that the Church has produced documents which explain everything that goes on inside the temples. Again, this is false and misleading. The Church has revealed only an edited version of what goes on inside the temple... editing history in the process. These days, when discussing the origins of the ceremonies, it fails to reveal things such as Blood Atonement, the influence of the Masons, and selectively deletes portions of history which would otherwise be an embarrassment to the Church and negatively impact its recruitment efforts. You also state that the Mormons have never had a history of being racists. I suggest you do a bit of basic research, and read History of the Church. You will find that until 1978, blacks were not allowed to hold any office in the Church, and were specifically thought of as inferior... this coming directly from Church apostles... who "speak on behalf of God": "Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church Your final point, regarding the "polygamy crap," is also without basis. The practice of polygamy, err... polyandry (multiple wives, who also have multiple husbands) was introduced by Joseph Smith in a Revelation from God. Tell me... who is the founder of "your" Church... since you say they are not the same Church? If it's Joseph Smith, then we are correct in stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) has its roots in polyandry/polygamy, and that the founder (prophet, seer and revelator) of this Church, who "restored" this only true Church, is the original prophet in which the current Church is based.
I'd be happy to help clarify some of these similarities, while correcting some of your statements in the process.
The Mormon/LDS theology is about Joseph Smith, who was able to translate "golden plates" he found buried in the forest (using a seer stone, similar to a divining rod, mind you) and thus wrote the Book of Mormon. One section in the Book of Mormon is the Book of Abraham, again translated by Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian Papyrus purchased from a travelling huckster.
Science, namely Egyptologists, have clearly shown that Joseph Smith's translation of these documents (which were shown to be ancient burial scrolls and not an account of the life of Abraham) was not only inaccurate but also fradulent.
Among the things that we Mormons believe is that Adam (from Adam and Eve) is actually God (see the talks by former prophet and seer Brigham Young), that flesh-and-blood people like you and I (not spirits, mind you) inhabit our moon and sun (ibid) and that all other religions are "an abomination upon the face of the Earth" and their practitioners are "whores from Babylon" (History of the Church, Book of Mormon, Gospel Principals).
Mormonism has never paralleled, nor has anything in common with, traditional Christianity. The God of Mormonism is different than the God of Christianity, even though the same nomenclature is used to describe Him. Mormonism believes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distince and separate entities, as opposed to the traditional views of Christianity. Mormonism believes there are three "kingdoms" of heaven which you must qualify for... belief alone is not enough to obtain the ultimate salvation.
Salvation in Christianity is based on faith and belief; works being the result of this. In Mormonism, it is based on works... you must do everything you can, or you will not achieve the ultimate salvation.
In Mormonism, if you are not temple-worthy, you will not be entitled to the highest form of salvation. In the temple, you will learn what amount to secret handshakes as you swear an oath to keep this to yourself. In the past, you had to swear an oath to Blood Atonement (... or let my throat be slit, where I shall bleed to death as punishment) (Biography of Brigham Young)... but now, to be politically correct, the Church changed it to something more people will accept.
In the Church, women are not equal. They cannot hold priesthood office, they are not entitled to the keys to the priesthood, cannot bless their family, and are not treated as equals. It is an interesting culture, accentuated by the individual quirks of different communities and States.
Overall, I've found it a fascinating community of people who otherwise wish to do good, but are kept ignorant of the true history of their Church and of their religion.
The current (Feb 2004) issue of Consumer Reports, which deals with cellphones, tends to agree with you... people are tired of all the "frills" and just want a device that performs its basic function well.
Interestingly enough, many of the cellphones on the market today do an incredibly poor job of carrying out a conversation. They tend to have a crappy microphone, low sensitivity and often a less than friendly function navigation system.
It's kind of like taking a step back into the past, when programmers needed books to teach them how to design a successful user interface.
In what state can one garnish wages for civil judgements? In just about any state - otherwise, civil judgements would have no teeth and nobody would use them.
As for your short-sighted suggestion that he transfer all non-liened assets over to his spouse and file for chapter 7, do you really think you're the first brilliant genius to think of such a thing? The law provides remedies for actions taken to hide assets, especially if a lawsuit is pending. I suggest he NOT take these actions, as it will cast him in a bad light before the court.
I'm truly amazed at how much damaging information know-nothing armchair experts put out in response to serious matters. Perhaps, after you've been sued in both Federal and State courts several times, you'll learn the hard way.
Yes -- I've been sued in both, multiple times.
Hey fool... we're in techo-land here. ATM can mean "Asynchronous Transfer Mode." Personally, I'm glad he clarified it via redundancy. No need to guess or read further, even during an alcoholic binge.
You are a genius!!! Why didn't I think of that? If only you could spell "propagate."
It doesn't surprise me at all. My testimony before the Nevada PUC regarding manipulating SS7 packets was cancelled last year. Instead, they held it with the lawyers, who argued the packets could not be altered or tampered with. Even after my phone call to them, in which I manipulated the CLID packet, they still ignored the obvious. It took other giants (phone companies, in this case) to finally bring this beast to the public's attention. Now, perhaps, the PUC will also look at what they dismissed with disdain last year.
Please don't be so naive, to the point where you are spreading false hope. Prepaid legal plans do very little for you. Yes, they're fine for when you need a lawyer to write your noisy neighbor a letter, or to call and threaten your mechanic with a lawsuit if he won't release your car. But beyond that, they're "paper-mill" lawyers.
Read your contract carefully... and you'll find they will "refer" you to an expert should a case get ugly (require serious litigation)... at a "reduced" rate. You'll still be paying hundreds of dollars an hour, and require a hefty retainer up-front, as well as all costs advanced.
Don't ever bother with a prepaid legal plan. It isn't worth the contract it's written on.
"To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?"
It feels fine, wee-wee boy. Just as with software and shrink-wrap licenses, I buy music and movies, and I agree to the terms of use. Such things must be a great nuisance to those who enjoy pirating software - because obviously your attitude is in keeping with that of the liberal hippies who think everything should be free.
In short, we are free to choose what we want to buy or not buy. Exercising that choice, in a way which tweaks your collar, should not subject us to pathetic insult from those who disagree with us.
80 lines is more than is needed to establish the claim, which then entitles SCO to disgorgement of profits and treble damages.
.001% of the code... we should not be found guilty of copying their code!"
followed by, "... and plaintiff, tell me... does that .001% that you copied belong to SCO?" ... followed by, "Uhhh... uhhh... yea, but the folks on slashdot don't really care about that...."
I can see the plaintiffs speaking now, "But your honor... we only copied
That's not at issue here, mental midget. What is at issue is the theft and misuse of intellectual property. One thing SCO will ask for is disgorgement of profits, along with treble damages. I suggest you learn what those terms mean, and how the courts have applied them lately in other intellectual property cases, before typing more of those thoughts you pawn off as intellectual fodder.
You're a short-sighted idiot, too. Boy, I am certainly finding my share of mindless fools in this particular story.
It's not about any decent programmer writing 80 lines of code -- that won't cure the damage already done by distributing proprietary code. You will also be hard pressed to have a programmer replace those lines of code, under a "clean-room" environment. Don't know what that means, as it pertains to intellectual property, geek boy? Better find out.
How do you get "us" to buy a license? Well, I would not expect a software thief to purchase a license. Especially not when he can justify, in his own mind, excuses for not doing so... "I modified the code, I shouldn't have to obtain a license for the base code that I started with!"
Why bother licensing any music, either? After all, you "modified" it into a new format (MP3). You shouldn't have to pay for that, should you?
You're right... there would be a lot of comments from both sources that have the word "SCO" and "Santa Cruz Operations" in them.
Why didn't I think of that?
Better yet, perhaps you should tip off the defendants, and they can argue that in court. Maybe you'll win a booby prize. After all, you're quite a gifted thinker.
You're a stupid and childish little shit-head. I am always amazed at the crap-heads that infest this and other forums.
Why don't you try doing something positive, for a change. Just because you don't like the fact that a company is making use of the legal process to protect its intellectual rights doesn't mean you need to encourage others to cause damage.
What about legitimate people who want to make use of their products? It's idiots like you, who haven't a clue as to the ramifications or repercussions of their stupid actions, that cause others needless grief and suffering.
Grow up, you stupid imbecile.
Get your basic comprehension skills straight, geek boy...
"The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system."
They didn't say it was based on Linux, you mental midget. They said it was just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system. It's in the same league as Linux when it comes to vulnerabilities. Is that so difficult for your programmatic little mind to comprehend?
They don't have to prove anything to the Linux community, you moron. Though you'd like to think of yourselves as Gods, you're just a flock of fools, who baste in the comfort of having other fools for company. All SCO has to do is prove (not even beyond a reasonable doubt) in court that their code was copied. I've got news for you drummer boy... the jury doesn't give a shit what you or the Linux community think. When the time comes, I'm sure SCO will have one of its code geeks file a declaration stating that he/she wrote the code themselves. At that point, it's up to the defense to prove otherwise. You people are so blind... so narrow-minded... so brainwashed.
You're full of shit, too. The complaint sounding in tort (the lawsuit, for you dummies) will be very clear as to what the infringements are. SCO has not contradicted itself, because when it comes to legal action, only the complaint can speak for SCO. Get a grip, you jerky little kids.
You're a fruitcake. SCO isn't on trial here... and the "honesty" of their actions is not at issue. The issue is: Did they steal source code from SCO, comments and all. So far, that appears to be the case.
Just because you don't like SCO, or you don't like the way they dress or how they handle the lawsuit doesn't change the facts of the case.
Get a grip on reality. Better yet, get some noise filters in your life, and turn them on. Maybe you'll become a more objective person.