Ultimately, the TCO and ROI of Linux may be less than, comparable to, or more expensive than Unix or Windows depending on the individual corporate deployment circumstances.
I also predict the number of replies to this post will be less than, equal to, or greater than the number of mod points this post receives.
I live in Minnesota, a typically left-wing state of the US near Canada. My state's attorney general was quoted today as saying that this turnout is shaping up to be the biggest in state history.
That said, I voted for Bush this morning; I'm tired of the rhetoric and propaganda from people like Michael Moore, elitist Hollywood, and the left wing newspapers here.
And given that other patriachs such as Joshua, Caleb, and their descendants lived during and after Moses, and after witnessing the events described in the Torah, they still went on to fight for their land and form the nation of Israel long after Moses' death leads me to conclude that at least some of what Moses said had to be true.
Not to mention, many of the things recorded were not just on Moses' word. An entire nation walking through the Red Sea, Moses' face glowing after seeing the face of God, the pillar of fire leading the camp, all these things were witnessed by not only Moses but also his descendants and those that lived long after him, some of those people also wrote books of the Bible confirming what was said earlier.
Do you think the book of Psalms advocates the killing of children by bashing them against stones? Are you arguing that Elijah simply hated children? Perhaps Isaiah was trying to slaughter the children of the world via the hand of God?:-)
A more honest answer would reveal that the verses cited were taken out of context to purposely convey a negative meaning. Surely, if one were to curse a man of God as great as Elijah, God would curse that person ("I will bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you"). And more certainly, those that fight against righteous people will be put down ("Greater is He that is in you than those in the world. No weapon formed against you will prosper.")
When asked about children, Christ responded, "Let the children come to Me, for the kindom of God belongs to them." And when asked what were the greatest commandments in all the Torah, Jesus responded by saying the greatest two are to love the Lord and love your neighbore. To me, that doesn't sound like a vengeful God.
Never once is a child mentioned. As I clarified in another reply, a son does not equate to a child. For instance, Abraham had offered his willing son as a sacrifice, at a time when his son was in his mid-30s, Jewish scholars estimate.
This is even evidenced in the verse you cite, when one of the prerequisites to his being stoned is him being a drunkard. Obviously they weren't stoning toddlers.:-)
True, however, a requirement to that specific law is that the son can only be stoned if he is belligerent and a drunkard, and only at the parent's request. You'd be hard-pressed to find a drunk 4 year old, even in Biblical times.:-)
A common mistake among modern day readers of the Bible is to assume the word "son" as meaning a child. This is evident in the example when Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar at God's request, most Christians take that to mean Isaac was a child, when in fact Jewish scholars have identified Isaac as being in his mid 30s during the ordeal.
The passage you specified mentions neither child nor children, only "son". If a son is a rebellious drunkard, he could be stoned at the request of the parents.
There is nothing in the Christian or Jewish bibles about stoning disobedient children.
In the Old Testament, you have the Law, what Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Pentateuch. In those 5 books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers), Moses gave the people laws by which to live there lives (don't murder, steal, covet, love God and love your neighbore). Additionally, some laws found in those books are not politically correct in the current day and age (men should not sleep with other men, not to fornicate, not to have sex with animals).
Many of these laws had stern consequences, some would say even Draconian consequences. (i.e. stoning a woman who cheated on her husband)
Christians believe that the punishment of these laws are no longer valid, because of Christ's death which covers our sins. This is evidenced in Christ's own forgiving of the woman who cheated (when he said, "he who is without sin should throw the first stone").
Most Jews believe these laws and punishments are still valid, but they have no secular law to enforce them.
Both Jews and Christians believe that these laws were given by God to Moses, in order to establish an absolute moral standard, hence giving the people a lawful and ordered society in which to live.
Yeah I figured some of the sites may be due to malformed or just plain bad HTML, but I'm doubting that all the sites I've seen that render incorrectly have nothing to do with FireFox itself. Am I wrong?
This isn't a troll (I'm posting from FireFox), but I wish the Mozilla group would stop rushing to get 1.0 out the door and fix the rendering problems associated with sites like CodeProject.com, Slashdot, MSDN, pinvoke.net, Neowin, and the host of others I've visited that often are problematic.
For several months, there's been a lot of buzz around Google's April 2004 registration of the gbrowser.com domain. After quite a while of digging, I believe I've managed to boil some truth out of the rumor stew. While this is pure speculation, it's speculation based on a wide variety of facts gathered over the past three months. Feel free to take it with a generous helping of salt.
The Mozilla developers have been stone silent on the issue, aside from a few accidental slips, but several other sources have let loose other bits of information. Interestingly, there's either great confusion on the plans (or a highly partitioned project inside Google), or a good deal of misinformation. Trying to determine what's real and what's not is like making a Venn diagram. Each source is a circle filled with information. Some information is common to all or many circles, some information only comes from one source. you have to put all the circles together, and where they overlap is the most reliable information. So after weeks of analysis, this is where we think Gbrowser is headed.
The overlap is looking like a Google branded and customized Firefox based browser. To help set it apart from the rest of the browser crowd, they're integrating a lot of their own technologies. Since Firefox does not contain a mail app, they're integrating Gmail for email access, with a built in new-mail notifier. Interestingly, mailto: urls will work with Gmail, allowing peple to click email links in pages and have Gmail open a new mail to that address, as well as IE-like buttons on the toolbar for composing new mail from scratch.
Newsgroups will be built in similar to Gmail with the Google Groups service, and possibly the ability to select groups to watch, like in a full fledged newsreader (like Mozilla Thunderbird). And Google News will also have built in access from the browser along with Google Alerts or a similar, RSS-based feature.
Other features include better search integration, with the extra features such as Image Searching by right clicking on an image or selected word. As Silicon.com found there is also a Google branded IM service on the way as well, and could be a Jabber or rebranded AIM also coming bundled with the browser.
There are other, extra-browser features that will most likely come with it, and tie into the browser, such as Google Desktop Search, Picasa (with links to the browser for web-related sharing, searching, etc.), and Google Toolbar features that IE users currently enjoy.
Also, Google loves the recently aquired Blogger, and will have built in linkage to Blogger and rich-editing tools, making Blogger a highly integrated feature, with the ability to blog links and web-content as easily as using their integrated GMail features.
As I stated, Mozilla.org and Mozilla developers have been very quiet on all of this. But with such an open organization, it's hard to hide all secrets. There have been a lot of hidden bugs in Bugzilla related to searching, bugs that even members of the Security group can't access. Recently, there was a bug duplicated to a confidential bug with the following comment by the triager: "This is a duplicate of a private bug about working with Google. So closing this one." That bug also now closed, but it was open long enouch for people to notice it.
There's also a lot of 'covert' code going into the tree without individual bug references. And none of these patches are being checked in by Google staff, but by other Mozilla developers, ostensibly checking in code for Google employees to keep a low profile. None of this is Google-exclusive, per se, as much as it is code that one could easily see as making life easier for a third party developer making heavy integration changes. the checking comments are usually
Why have an OS when you could use Google's servers to send and receive email (GMail), navigate the web (GBrowser), search the web (Google.com) store your files (GMail Drive utility), and search your hard drive (Google Desktop utility)? What next, Google IM?
What kind of smooth-it-over headline is this? Poo Poo? If this were Bill Gates instead of Linus, we'd say he's "blatantly ignoring", "throwing aside", "totally dismissing". But Poo Poo??
Today an issue was discovered with Mozilla Firefox which, in the rare case a.config file was used to manage the security and permissions of a folder on a web server, a specially crafted URL could access the contents of the folder. Users are recommened to apply a small code patch to fix the issue.
about face
Today, yet another huge security hole was found in Microsoft software in which blows open all websites running ASP.NET. Microsoft's response? Re-write your code to fix the problem! Just another example of Microsoft's "blame the victim" mentality, when oh when will the madness end?!! We should all switch to Linux and Mozilla and Apache today because those apps never have bugs.
And neither of you tought about posting the whole thing to do some karma whoring. Shame on me for being such a douche bag.
Kareful not to insult me nut Kase Kause I've got the Krazies for the Karma.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said man, well said. :-)
Woopsie! Slashdot forgot to mention the fact that this vulnerability has no effect on XP machines patched with SP2. Way to go Slashdot!
Your party lost the 2004 Presidential Election by nearly 4,000,000 (Four Million) votes. Please stop whining. Thank you.
That's why he lost to Bush by 3,000,000 votes Tuesday.
<mods, it's a joke. laugh.>
Ultimately, the TCO and ROI of Linux may be less than, comparable to, or more expensive than Unix or Windows depending on the individual corporate deployment circumstances.
I also predict the number of replies to this post will be less than, equal to, or greater than the number of mod points this post receives.
I live in Minnesota, a typically left-wing state of the US near Canada. My state's attorney general was quoted today as saying that this turnout is shaping up to be the biggest in state history.
That said, I voted for Bush this morning; I'm tired of the rhetoric and propaganda from people like Michael Moore, elitist Hollywood, and the left wing newspapers here.
Since Slashdot and Goatse were invented. ;-)
And given that other patriachs such as Joshua, Caleb, and their descendants lived during and after Moses, and after witnessing the events described in the Torah, they still went on to fight for their land and form the nation of Israel long after Moses' death leads me to conclude that at least some of what Moses said had to be true.
Not to mention, many of the things recorded were not just on Moses' word. An entire nation walking through the Red Sea, Moses' face glowing after seeing the face of God, the pillar of fire leading the camp, all these things were witnessed by not only Moses but also his descendants and those that lived long after him, some of those people also wrote books of the Bible confirming what was said earlier.
Do you think the book of Psalms advocates the killing of children by bashing them against stones? Are you arguing that Elijah simply hated children? Perhaps Isaiah was trying to slaughter the children of the world via the hand of God? :-)
A more honest answer would reveal that the verses cited were taken out of context to purposely convey a negative meaning. Surely, if one were to curse a man of God as great as Elijah, God would curse that person ("I will bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you"). And more certainly, those that fight against righteous people will be put down ("Greater is He that is in you than those in the world. No weapon formed against you will prosper.")
When asked about children, Christ responded, "Let the children come to Me, for the kindom of God belongs to them." And when asked what were the greatest commandments in all the Torah, Jesus responded by saying the greatest two are to love the Lord and love your neighbore. To me, that doesn't sound like a vengeful God.
10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anybody but Bush.
Never once is a child mentioned. As I clarified in another reply, a son does not equate to a child. For instance, Abraham had offered his willing son as a sacrifice, at a time when his son was in his mid-30s, Jewish scholars estimate.
:-)
This is even evidenced in the verse you cite, when one of the prerequisites to his being stoned is him being a drunkard. Obviously they weren't stoning toddlers.
True, however, a requirement to that specific law is that the son can only be stoned if he is belligerent and a drunkard, and only at the parent's request. You'd be hard-pressed to find a drunk 4 year old, even in Biblical times. :-)
A common mistake among modern day readers of the Bible is to assume the word "son" as meaning a child. This is evident in the example when Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar at God's request, most Christians take that to mean Isaac was a child, when in fact Jewish scholars have identified Isaac as being in his mid 30s during the ordeal. The passage you specified mentions neither child nor children, only "son". If a son is a rebellious drunkard, he could be stoned at the request of the parents.
There is nothing in the Christian or Jewish bibles about stoning disobedient children.
In the Old Testament, you have the Law, what Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Pentateuch. In those 5 books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers), Moses gave the people laws by which to live there lives (don't murder, steal, covet, love God and love your neighbore). Additionally, some laws found in those books are not politically correct in the current day and age (men should not sleep with other men, not to fornicate, not to have sex with animals).
Many of these laws had stern consequences, some would say even Draconian consequences. (i.e. stoning a woman who cheated on her husband)
Christians believe that the punishment of these laws are no longer valid, because of Christ's death which covers our sins. This is evidenced in Christ's own forgiving of the woman who cheated (when he said, "he who is without sin should throw the first stone").
Most Jews believe these laws and punishments are still valid, but they have no secular law to enforce them.
Both Jews and Christians believe that these laws were given by God to Moses, in order to establish an absolute moral standard, hence giving the people a lawful and ordered society in which to live.
Yeah I figured some of the sites may be due to malformed or just plain bad HTML, but I'm doubting that all the sites I've seen that render incorrectly have nothing to do with FireFox itself. Am I wrong?
This isn't a troll (I'm posting from FireFox), but I wish the Mozilla group would stop rushing to get 1.0 out the door and fix the rendering problems associated with sites like CodeProject.com, Slashdot, MSDN, pinvoke.net, Neowin, and the host of others I've visited that often are problematic.
Getting slow, Google cache here.
Full text:
For several months, there's been a lot of buzz around Google's April 2004 registration of the gbrowser.com domain. After quite a while of digging, I believe I've managed to boil some truth out of the rumor stew. While this is pure speculation, it's speculation based on a wide variety of facts gathered over the past three months. Feel free to take it with a generous helping of salt.
The Mozilla developers have been stone silent on the issue, aside from a few accidental slips, but several other sources have let loose other bits of information. Interestingly, there's either great confusion on the plans (or a highly partitioned project inside Google), or a good deal of misinformation. Trying to determine what's real and what's not is like making a Venn diagram. Each source is a circle filled with information. Some information is common to all or many circles, some information only comes from one source. you have to put all the circles together, and where they overlap is the most reliable information. So after weeks of analysis, this is where we think Gbrowser is headed.
The overlap is looking like a Google branded and customized Firefox based browser. To help set it apart from the rest of the browser crowd, they're integrating a lot of their own technologies. Since Firefox does not contain a mail app, they're integrating Gmail for email access, with a built in new-mail notifier. Interestingly, mailto: urls will work with Gmail, allowing peple to click email links in pages and have Gmail open a new mail to that address, as well as IE-like buttons on the toolbar for composing new mail from scratch.
Newsgroups will be built in similar to Gmail with the Google Groups service, and possibly the ability to select groups to watch, like in a full fledged newsreader (like Mozilla Thunderbird). And Google News will also have built in access from the browser along with Google Alerts or a similar, RSS-based feature.
Other features include better search integration, with the extra features such as Image Searching by right clicking on an image or selected word. As Silicon.com found there is also a Google branded IM service on the way as well, and could be a Jabber or rebranded AIM also coming bundled with the browser.
There are other, extra-browser features that will most likely come with it, and tie into the browser, such as Google Desktop Search, Picasa (with links to the browser for web-related sharing, searching, etc.), and Google Toolbar features that IE users currently enjoy.
Also, Google loves the recently aquired Blogger, and will have built in linkage to Blogger and rich-editing tools, making Blogger a highly integrated feature, with the ability to blog links and web-content as easily as using their integrated GMail features.
As I stated, Mozilla.org and Mozilla developers have been very quiet on all of this. But with such an open organization, it's hard to hide all secrets. There have been a lot of hidden bugs in Bugzilla related to searching, bugs that even members of the Security group can't access. Recently, there was a bug duplicated to a confidential bug with the following comment by the triager: "This is a duplicate of a private bug about working with Google. So closing this one." That bug also now closed, but it was open long enouch for people to notice it.
There's also a lot of 'covert' code going into the tree without individual bug references. And none of these patches are being checked in by Google staff, but by other Mozilla developers, ostensibly checking in code for Google employees to keep a low profile. None of this is Google-exclusive, per se, as much as it is code that one could easily see as making life easier for a third party developer making heavy integration changes. the checking comments are usually
Why have an OS when you could use Google's servers to send and receive email (GMail), navigate the web (GBrowser), search the web (Google.com) store your files (GMail Drive utility), and search your hard drive (Google Desktop utility)? What next, Google IM?
Larry Ellison's New Internet Computer. Complete failure. Need we say more?
What kind of smooth-it-over headline is this? Poo Poo? If this were Bill Gates instead of Linus, we'd say he's "blatantly ignoring", "throwing aside", "totally dismissing". But Poo Poo??
For the uninformed, you can already run Python on .NET Common Language Runtime and Python on the Java Virtual Machine.
Holy crap I can't believe it. (as spoken by Moses @ bush, Romal soldier @ cross, etc.)
My point exactly; Slashdot is continually posting sensationalist, false headlines intended to enflame the tech world against Microsoft.
Today an issue was discovered with Mozilla Firefox which, in the rare case a .config file was used to manage the security and permissions of a folder on a web server, a specially crafted URL could access the contents of the folder. Users are recommened to apply a small code patch to fix the issue.
about face
Today, yet another huge security hole was found in Microsoft software in which blows open all websites running ASP.NET. Microsoft's response? Re-write your code to fix the problem! Just another example of Microsoft's "blame the victim" mentality, when oh when will the madness end?!! We should all switch to Linux and Mozilla and Apache today because those apps never have bugs.
And neither of you tought about posting the whole thing to do some karma whoring. Shame on me for being such a douche bag. Kareful not to insult me nut Kase Kause I've got the Krazies for the Karma.