If we had worried about "what" instead of "who" there would have been no 9/11. Cockpit doors would be titanium with reinforcement capable of withstanding multiple-ton dead weight level impacts. EVERY flight would have proper security, which means armed personel with frangible munition. EVERY person would be properly screened -- which means they get x-rayed and metal detector and explosive-sniff screen as they walk along a properly constructed tunnel towards the airplane. Same goes for luggage and carry-on. We STILL don't have explosive-proof storage bins in planes, even though they were demonstrated by Dupont almost, what, 20 years ago? Every pilot should have a side-arm -- and we saw how well that went over with our socialist/fascist FAA/Homeland security overlords. Oh my, the cost people say. Yeah, $500 billion 9/11 event and we were squeamish over the $250 million retrofits to airplanes and of the cost of keeping a mere 8,000 sky marshals on the payroll... Fuck you! your "Papers please" Gestapo mentality and your statist brethren.
Wow, that is one of the most insightful posts I've ever read on Slashdot. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
Personally I don't give a fuck if it's Osama Bin Laden himself sitting beside me on a plane... as long as he doesn't have any explosives or weapons on him, he isn't a threat to me.
And all this talk about "Real-ID" protecting the borders is utter bullshit. And that's because it does NOTHING to tell us anything about the history or motives of the person coming from $WHEREVER. Maybe Jim Bob from Ecuador has never been in trouble with the law in his native country in his entire life... that doesn't mean he isn't a radical muslim fundamentalist who's coming here to cause trouble. And for that matter, how may current terrorists aren't "in the system" in the native countries for whatever reason? How many "native countries" don't even *have* a system for tracking this stuff? And of those that do, how many do we have information sharing agreements in place with?
Real-ID as a tool for protecting national security is nothing but a smoke-screen.
However, herein lies the true difference between capitalist economy and every other economy - the possibility of improvement through hard work and determination.
Exactly. As long as we respect the notion of private property, the opportunity exists for a person to save their earnings by living below their means, and then eventually buy land and a home to retire too, or work as a farm or whatever. Or they can invest their own capital in the capital markets and let other people grow their wealth for them ( one of the books in that "Rich Dad / Poor Dad" series makes the point that one key difference between the rich and the poor is that the poor don't have the knowledge of markets and investing to utilize the markets to grow their wealth).
Or they might save their earnings and use the accumulated wealth to start their own business where they can set the rules and provide "good" (by their definition) jobs to other people. Eg, as Joel Spolsky said "I started Fog Creek because I wanted to create a company where I'd want to work."
Saying that Capitalism is slavery is totally ridiculous. If anything is slavery, "Taxation is Slavery," since involuntary taxation denies your fundamental right to own property... and if you can't own anything, can you even own yourself?
Ok, then let's get rid of more government regulation and interference with free markets - which makes it more difficult for these talented and hard-working American workers to start their own firms - and then sit back and watch the more talented and hard-working folks eat the lunch of the people who shortsightedly fixate on bottom line labor costs.
I firmly believe this is a self-correcting problem. Companies that make brain-dead, shortsighted, "can't see past the end of my nose" decisions will be beaten in the end by companies that take a more long-term, holistic view. But we need to keep the free-market as free as possible in order to facilitate this.
I want these guys around to advise my competition! In fact, I hope every company I might ever compete with, goes out and hires these guys to help them hire as many "low-bid" workers as they can.
Meanwhile, I'll focus on hiring the best workers possible, regardless of where they are from, and eventually run these other guys out of business anyway.
Ping Identity are another outfit calling their stuff "Open Source" but not using an OSI approved license. Their license *might* manage to pass OSI certification if submitted (and maybe it has been and is still in process, come to think of it) but it's not on the current list.
I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here. This is a *great* thing. It's ridiculous for people to take advantage of the term "Open Source" to market their products, while shipping something that isn't actually Open Source. And yes, I understand that some people quibble over whether or not the OSI definition is *the* definition of Open Source or not... hell, I may have argued that point myself in the past. But pragmatically, the OSID is the closest thing we have to a universal definition of what it means to be open source, and it's a good definition.
Let's hail this move as a good thing, to help prevent confusion in the market. SugarCRM, etc. shouldn't be going around calling their stuff Open Source when it's not. Let them use a different term like "Source Available" or "Smart Source" or "Elephantine Lipitrude" or something, whatever.
I don't see any way that we aren't screwed anyway. Unless everything we think we know about cosmology and physics is wrong, the Universe is going to eventually experience one of two things: Heat Death or collapsing into a Singularity. Neither of those scenarios seems to leave much hope for the continued existence of human life.
Assuming the cosmological theories are sound; the only way to even theorize about human life continuing perpetually requires going back to "magic wands" like dimension-hopping or something.
Bottom line, IMO, is that human life has a hard-coded expiration date, and in the end we're all dead and the universe is just a cold, dead, empty wasteland.
The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code. the current one locks it down much more tightly and I for one have no problem at all with it. Make your money off of your own code if you are so bright. Stop copying everyone else's work and claiming it as your own. Or better yet, learn to make your money through value-added techniques and services instead.
Ok, that's pure FUD. The GPL is not designed to prevent anybody from making a profit.
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Now it may be true that making money from GPL'd software requires different business models and strategies than making money from proprietary software... but it's false to suggest that the GPL prohibits - in spirit or in letter - making a profit from GPL'd code.
(which by the way was subsidized by our tax dollars to the tune of billions)?
We gave the network operators billions of our tax dollars.
Can you point me to any references to back those assertions up? I was under the impression that the current backbone infrastructure was all privately funded pretty much since NSFNet went out of the picture. Knowing that significant public funds went into the existing infrastructure would change my position on net neutrality (which I currently oppose) somewhat...
That is what prevents little companies from entering the market. We give them special protections from prosecution for the traffic they carry under the auspice that they are impartial, common carriers, not responsible for what crosses their network. Both of these were done for the common good. If they want to be mercenary and be unregulated let them, right after they pay the money back and after we start prosecuting them for transporting child pornography and contributing to copyright infringement. If they want to eb treated like any other company we should oblige them, but if they want to be supported and protected by special laws, we should be getting something back for the american people.
This is one of the problems we have in America. Corporate chiefs lean on the cry of the "free market," which is a concept that many Americans (myself included) do embrace. BUT, unfortunately we don't have a *true* free market, we have this bastardised hyrid of government + corporation.
I do support the free market and generally believe that private companies should not be regulated (much) in how the profit from their investments. But the corollary to that is opposing government intervention that actually stifles competition and/or funnels public money to private companies; and we unfortunately have too much of that.
So it creates this weird catch-22 state where a free-market libertarian / anarcho-capitalist like myself might actually have to take up defending net neutrality (which is government regulation, which is a bad thing in general) because of earlier bad decisions by the government to get involved in something it never should have been involved in. <sigh/>
A private land owner getting a decision like that is the kind of thing that would get the constitution amended in the U.S., and would make the Queen angry in Canada.
It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, or what the Queen thinks. Sovereign individuals are just that: sovereign. We are not subjects of the United States government. "We The (Sovereign) People" created the government, and it serves at our pleasure, and we can replace it, destroy it, or ignore it.
The only reason people obey laws and rulings they fundamentally disagree with is threat of force. And right now the US government (and it's accomplices at the State and Local levels) employ more men with guns than any individual can hope to overcome. But that doesn't change the underlying principles. We are all free, sovereign individuals, with absolutely inalienable rights, not subjects.
None of this is - btw - an argument against voluntarily forming associations (call the governments, or whatever) for various purposes where it makes sense for sovereign individuals to work in a communal fashion for the greater good of all. But the point is, any sort of construct of that nature is artificial, created, and cannot preempt the inalienable rights of Freemen.
Neither implies you don't own your land. If a bully steals your lunch money does it mean you don't own your toys at home?
What if you come to school with no lunch money, and the bully goes to your home and takes your toys instead? Same difference... if you don't pay your property taxes, the government (at least here in NC) will eventually seize your land and sell it off.
I can't fathom this slashdot fascination with "net neutrality." If a provider spends millions or billions of dollars on fiber optic cable, routers, etc... why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to sell different qualities of service and charge differently for them? Shouldn't a VOIP provider who needs lower latency to avoid jitter, be able to sign up for a connection designed for VOIP?
For that matter, we *already* have a tiered system of selling bandwidth... you get a T1, that's not too expensive, but you only get 1.544MB of bandwidth... you need more, you pay bigger money for a T3, etc. Allowing ISP's to use QOS tools is not this big evil everybody is making it out to be.
And personally, I trust the free market to handle issues like this a lot better than government intervention.
Ron Paul is the best choice for Americans, period, not just nerds. He's the most pro-freedom candidate out there, and the only one - IMO - who's qualified to hold the position.
it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."
It's not necessary, it's actually pretty stupid. Anyone who causes an accident - regardless of why they did so - should be held liable. Liability for ones actions is a sufficient deterrent for most people to avoid doing stupid things... and for the others, they'll probably ignore this law anyway.
Furthermore, anyone who texts while driving and who does not cause an accident, cannot possibly be considered to have committed a crime. No victim, no crime.
3. Make the code easy to download and easy to build.
4. See step 3
5. See step 4
All joking aside, that is a huge hurdle that many projects don't get past. If you want people to contribute, they *MUST* be able to build your code. Preferably by downloading a tarball, extracting it and just typing one command, whether it's
#> build.sh
or
#> ant clean package deploy
or
#>./configure;./make clean;./make install
or whatever. The worst thing to do is provide a tarball that won't build, or that requires all sorts of extra work to setup the build environment, or telling people "just grab HEAD from CVS" when you know HEAD is broken 90% of the time.
When companies collude to make sure that all of their employees sign these agreements, it isn't a choice anymore. Choosing between signing over your rights or starving is a farcical definition of choice.
And implying that the choice is between "work for one of these colluding Wall Street companies or starve" is completely specious. There are plenty of jobs where you can earn a salary that is well above the level of "starving" that don't require that sort of NDA. Will you make *more* at the company with the onerous NDA? Sure, and that's part of the tradeoff and part of the choice. You want that vacation cottage in Switzerland, then sign the NDA and take your Wall Street job. Satisfied with a vacation cottage in Bumfuck, Texas? Then go work somwhere else...
The Constitution ( and the Magna Carta, and the Articles of Confederation, etc., etc.) is just a piece of paper. It can't do anything to defend our rights... we have to do that ourselves. Once the government has made the decision to step outside of the bounds set for it (by said Constitution) the only choice is for "We The People" to put it back in those bounds, or destroy it.
Revolution Calling? Yeah, you could say that... But we haven't reached a critical mass yet, where enough people *care* about what's happening to do anything about it.
Can we mod TFA and this/. article both (-5 Stupid)??? Nothing that guy says makes a damn bit of sense; and the idea that "open source has jumped the shark" is about as meaningful as "Shelby serves lucid potatoes before Congress."
I think the better question is: "Who cares? She was apparently doing a good job, or she would have already been fired; who gives a f%!# if she lied about paper credentials?"
I mean, really, what's more important... having paper credentials, or actually being able to "get the job done?"
Not every word of it, no. I actually intend to eventually, even though I consider it to be mostly fiction.
However, rape was never condoned or commanded.
Genesis 19
19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Anyway you might want to take notice that hte New Testament is very different. Yes, I believe in both, but something did indeed change at a certain point,
Aaah, the old "The New Testament establishes a new covenant with God's Children" line. Maybe, maybe not. Nonetheless, if we accept that the Old Testament is indeed the Word of God, we see that the God of the Bible did indeed command every - or nearly every - manner of atrocity imaginable.
and it's not fair to take certain things out of context for the purpose of bashing.
Who's bashing? I don't care much about the Bible or the God of Christianity either way. I think it's all a bunch of bollocks. I was just adding some support for an earlier comment that suggests that as example of writing about evil acts, the Bible is about as bad as it gets. Should we put this kid from Chicago in jail for what he wrote, when the holy text of one of the world's most common religions shows their God endorsing such evil? I think that was the more the original point...
Just because the Bible mentions those things doesn't mean it endorses those things
Have you read the Bible? There are tons of verses where God either commands or explicitly endorses all manners of horrors, including murder, rape and slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're in North Carolina, please take a moment to read this blog post and then contact your General Assembly representatives:
North Carolina government brags about Real ID compliance
If we had worried about "what" instead of "who" there would have been no 9/11. Cockpit doors would be titanium with reinforcement capable of withstanding multiple-ton dead weight level impacts. EVERY flight would have proper security, which means armed personel with frangible munition. EVERY person would be properly screened -- which means they get x-rayed and metal detector and explosive-sniff screen as they walk along a properly constructed tunnel towards the airplane. Same goes for luggage and carry-on. We STILL don't have explosive-proof storage bins in planes, even though they were demonstrated by Dupont almost, what, 20 years ago? Every pilot should have a side-arm -- and we saw how well that went over with our socialist/fascist FAA/Homeland security overlords. Oh my, the cost people say. Yeah, $500 billion 9/11 event and we were squeamish over the $250 million retrofits to airplanes and of the cost of keeping a mere 8,000 sky marshals on the payroll... Fuck you! your "Papers please" Gestapo mentality and your statist brethren.
Wow, that is one of the most insightful posts I've ever read on Slashdot. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
Personally I don't give a fuck if it's Osama Bin Laden himself sitting beside me on a plane... as long as he doesn't have
any explosives or weapons on him, he isn't a threat to me.
And all this talk about "Real-ID" protecting the borders is utter bullshit. And that's because it does NOTHING to tell
us anything about the history or motives of the person coming from $WHEREVER. Maybe Jim Bob from Ecuador has never been in trouble with the law in his native country in his entire life... that doesn't mean he isn't a radical muslim fundamentalist who's coming here to cause trouble. And for that matter, how may current terrorists aren't "in the system" in the native countries for whatever reason? How many "native countries" don't even *have* a system for tracking this stuff? And of those that do, how many do we have information sharing agreements in place with?
Real-ID as a tool for protecting national security is nothing but a smoke-screen.
However, herein lies the true difference between capitalist economy and every other economy - the possibility of improvement through hard work and determination.
Exactly. As long as we respect the notion of private property, the opportunity exists for a person to save their earnings by living below their means, and then eventually buy land and a home to retire too, or work as a farm or whatever. Or they can invest their own capital in the capital markets and let other people grow their wealth for them ( one of the books in that "Rich Dad / Poor Dad" series makes the point that one key difference between the rich and the poor is that the poor don't have the knowledge of markets and investing to utilize the markets to grow their wealth).
Or they might save their earnings and use the accumulated wealth to start their own business where they can set the rules and provide "good" (by their definition) jobs to other people. Eg, as Joel Spolsky said "I started Fog Creek because I wanted to create a company where I'd want to work."
Saying that Capitalism is slavery is totally ridiculous. If anything is slavery, "Taxation is Slavery," since involuntary taxation denies your fundamental right to own property... and if you can't own anything, can you even own yourself?
Ok, then let's get rid of more government regulation and interference with free markets - which makes it more difficult for
these talented and hard-working American workers to start their own firms - and then sit back and watch the more talented
and hard-working folks eat the lunch of the people who shortsightedly fixate on bottom line labor costs.
I firmly believe this is a self-correcting problem. Companies that make brain-dead, shortsighted, "can't see past the end
of my nose" decisions will be beaten in the end by companies that take a more long-term, holistic view. But we need to keep
the free-market as free as possible in order to facilitate this.
I want these guys around to advise my competition! In fact, I hope every company I might ever
compete with, goes out and hires these guys to help them hire as many "low-bid" workers as they can.
Meanwhile, I'll focus on hiring the best workers possible, regardless of where they are from, and eventually run
these other guys out of business anyway.
Ping Identity are another outfit calling their stuff "Open Source" but not using an OSI approved license. Their license *might* manage to pass OSI certification if submitted (and maybe it has been and is still in process, come to think of it) but it's not on the current list.
http://www.sourceid.org/licenses/show/3
I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here. This is a *great* thing. It's ridiculous for people
to take advantage of the term "Open Source" to market their products, while shipping something that isn't actually Open Source. And yes, I understand that some people quibble over whether or not the OSI definition is *the* definition of Open Source or not... hell, I may have argued that point myself in the past. But pragmatically, the OSID is the closest thing we have to a universal definition of what it means to be open source, and it's a good definition.
Let's hail this move as a good thing, to help prevent confusion in the market. SugarCRM, etc. shouldn't be going around
calling their stuff Open Source when it's not. Let them use a different term like "Source Available" or "Smart Source" or "Elephantine Lipitrude" or something, whatever.
Thus int he end we're really screwed.
I don't see any way that we aren't screwed anyway. Unless everything we think we know about
cosmology and physics is wrong, the Universe is going to eventually experience one of two things: Heat Death or collapsing into a Singularity. Neither of those
scenarios seems to leave much hope for the continued existence of human life.
Assuming the cosmological theories are sound; the only way to even theorize about human life continuing perpetually requires going back to "magic wands" like dimension-hopping or something.
Bottom line, IMO, is that human life has a hard-coded expiration date, and in the end we're all dead and the universe is just a cold, dead, empty wasteland.
Ok, that's pure FUD. The GPL is not designed to prevent anybody from making a profit.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesT
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Now it may be true that making money from GPL'd software requires different business models and strategies than making money from
proprietary software... but it's false to suggest that the GPL prohibits - in spirit or in letter - making a profit from GPL'd code.
(which by the way was subsidized by our tax dollars to the tune of billions)?
/>
We gave the network operators billions of our tax dollars.
Can you point me to any references to back those assertions up? I was under the impression
that the current backbone infrastructure was all privately funded pretty much since NSFNet
went out of the picture. Knowing that significant public funds went into the existing
infrastructure would change my position on net neutrality (which I currently oppose) somewhat...
That is what prevents little companies from entering the market. We give them special protections from prosecution for the traffic they carry under the auspice that they are impartial, common carriers, not responsible for what crosses their network. Both of these were done for the common good. If they want to be mercenary and be unregulated let them, right after they pay the money back and after we start prosecuting them for transporting child pornography and contributing to copyright infringement. If they want to eb treated like any other company we should oblige them, but if they want to be supported and protected by special laws, we should be getting something back for the american people.
This is one of the problems we have in America. Corporate chiefs lean on the cry of the "free market," which is a concept
that many Americans (myself included) do embrace. BUT, unfortunately we don't have a *true* free market, we have this
bastardised hyrid of government + corporation.
I do support the free market and generally believe that private companies should not be regulated (much) in how the
profit from their investments. But the corollary to that is opposing government intervention that actually stifles
competition and/or funnels public money to private companies; and we unfortunately have too much of that.
So it creates this weird catch-22 state where a free-market libertarian / anarcho-capitalist like myself might actually
have to take up defending net neutrality (which is government regulation, which is a bad thing in general) because of earlier
bad decisions by the government to get involved in something it never should have been involved in. <sigh
Are you ready to claim sovereign rights to your land?
s titutional/dp/1594110964/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-56272 96-5318468?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180583247&sr=1-1
Why not?
For a good discussion of that subject, see http://www.amazon.com/Good-Be-King-Foundation-Con
A private land owner getting a decision like that is the kind of thing that would get the constitution amended in the U.S., and would make the Queen angry in Canada.
It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, or what the Queen thinks. Sovereign individuals are just that: sovereign. We are not subjects of the United States government. "We The (Sovereign) People" created the government, and it serves at our pleasure, and we can replace it, destroy it, or ignore it.
The only reason people obey laws and rulings they fundamentally disagree with is threat of force. And right now the US government (and it's accomplices at the State and Local levels) employ more men with guns than any individual can hope to overcome. But that doesn't change the underlying principles. We are all free, sovereign individuals, with absolutely inalienable rights, not subjects.
None of this is - btw - an argument against voluntarily forming associations (call the governments, or whatever) for various purposes where it makes sense for sovereign individuals to work in a communal fashion for the greater good of all. But the point is, any sort of construct of that nature is artificial, created, and cannot preempt the inalienable rights of Freemen.
Neither implies you don't own your land. If a bully steals your lunch money does it mean you don't own your toys at home?
What if you come to school with no lunch money, and the bully goes to your home and takes your toys instead? Same difference... if you don't pay your property taxes, the government (at least here in NC) will eventually seize your land and sell it off.
and today is one of those days.
We have the most brain-dead General Assembly in the world. This lot couldn't pour
piss out of a boot if the instructions were stamped on the heel.
I can't fathom this slashdot fascination with "net neutrality." If a provider spends millions or billions of dollars on
fiber optic cable, routers, etc... why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to sell different qualities of service and charge
differently for them? Shouldn't a VOIP provider who needs lower latency to avoid jitter, be able to sign up for
a connection designed for VOIP?
For that matter, we *already* have a tiered system of selling bandwidth... you get a T1, that's not too expensive, but you only get 1.544MB of bandwidth... you need more, you pay bigger money for a T3, etc. Allowing ISP's to use QOS tools is not this big evil everybody is making it out to be.
And personally, I trust the free market to handle issues like this a lot better than government intervention.
Ron Paul is the best choice for Americans, period, not just nerds. He's the most pro-freedom candidate out there, and the only one - IMO - who's qualified to hold the position.
it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."
It's not necessary, it's actually pretty stupid. Anyone who causes an accident - regardless of why they did so - should be held liable. Liability for ones actions is a sufficient deterrent for most people to avoid doing stupid things... and for the others, they'll probably ignore this law anyway.
Furthermore, anyone who texts while driving and who does not cause an accident, cannot possibly be considered to have committed a crime. No victim, no crime.
This is useless tilting at windmills at best.
1. Write code
./configure; ./make clean; ./make install
2. Write code that does something useful
3. Make the code easy to download and easy to build.
4. See step 3
5. See step 4
All joking aside, that is a huge hurdle that many projects don't get past. If you want people to contribute, they *MUST*
be able to build your code. Preferably by downloading a tarball, extracting it and just typing one command, whether it's
#> build.sh
or
#> ant clean package deploy
or
#>
or whatever. The worst thing to do is provide a tarball that won't build, or that requires all sorts of extra work
to setup the build environment, or telling people "just grab HEAD from CVS" when you know HEAD is broken 90% of the time.
I don't know, but my bank works the same way you just described. E-mail per-se is never used
for anything, just their web-based messaging system...
When companies collude to make sure that all of their employees sign these agreements, it isn't a choice anymore. Choosing between signing over your rights or starving is a farcical definition of choice.
And implying that the choice is between "work for one of these colluding Wall Street companies or starve" is completely specious. There are plenty of jobs where you can earn a salary that is well above the level of "starving" that don't require that sort of NDA. Will you make *more* at the company with the onerous NDA? Sure, and that's part of the tradeoff and part of the choice. You want that vacation cottage in Switzerland, then sign the NDA and take your Wall Street job. Satisfied with a vacation cottage in Bumfuck, Texas? Then go work somwhere else...
The Constitution ( and the Magna Carta, and the Articles of Confederation, etc., etc.) is just a piece of paper. It can't do anything to defend our rights... we have to do that ourselves. Once the government has made the decision to step outside of
the bounds set for it (by said Constitution) the only choice is for "We The People" to put it back in those bounds, or destroy it.
Revolution Calling? Yeah, you could say that... But we haven't reached a critical mass yet, where enough people *care* about what's happening to do anything about it.
Can we mod TFA and this /. article both (-5 Stupid)??? Nothing that guy
says makes a damn bit of sense; and the idea that "open source has
jumped the shark" is about as meaningful as "Shelby serves lucid potatoes before Congress."
Question is, why did it take 28 years?
I think the better question is: "Who cares? She was apparently doing a good job, or she would have already been fired; who gives a f%!# if she lied about paper credentials?"
I mean, really, what's more important... having paper credentials, or actually being able to "get the job done?"
Not every word of it, no. I actually intend to eventually, even though I consider it to be mostly fiction.
However, rape was never condoned or commanded.
Genesis 19
19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Anyway you might want to take notice that hte New Testament is very different. Yes, I believe in both, but something did indeed change at a certain point,
Aaah, the old "The New Testament establishes a new covenant with God's Children" line. Maybe, maybe not. Nonetheless, if we accept that the Old Testament is indeed the Word of God, we see that the God of the Bible did indeed command every - or nearly every - manner of atrocity imaginable.
and it's not fair to take certain things out of context for the purpose of bashing.
Who's bashing? I don't care much about the Bible or the God of Christianity either way. I think it's all a bunch of bollocks. I was just adding some support for an earlier comment that suggests that as example of writing about evil acts, the Bible is about as bad as it gets. Should we put this kid from Chicago in jail for what he wrote, when the holy text of one of the world's most common religions shows their God endorsing such evil? I think that was the more the original point...
Food for thought:
m l
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.ht
Just because the Bible mentions those things doesn't mean it endorses those things
Have you read the Bible? There are tons of verses where God either commands or explicitly
endorses all manners of horrors, including murder, rape and slavery.