And your God is so all powerful but he can't find a way to give people free will AND set them free with the truth?
If you are told everything, where is your choice? Where is the need to believe or have faith? If you had the nature of the universe all laid out for you, would you have any free will to chose to believe? No. Would you have the capacity to learn and grow? No.
I hope you one day develop an open mind about things and admit that you do not have all the answers. None of us do.
Jesus did not come to save those who believe they do not need saving but rather to save those people who knew that they were not perfect.
Judging by the box office numbers, the average joe/jane does not know or care about blue/green screen effects. The only time I will notice flaws in CG effects if the movie is lacking in plot or dialogue.
The last movie where I thought the CG effect were awful would have to be The Mummy Returns but that was because the plot was quite weak.
The replies on IMDB from are meaningless as they do not represent the average moviegoer. They are a small vocal minority of armchair movie editors with no real experience developing a feature movie with a proper plotline.
If you considered The Mummy Returns or any of the last three Star Wars movies as better than this, then obviously you care more about effects over plot and dialogue.
But what does that have to do with the price of tea in china or the fact that we can and are selfish. Selfless acts do not change our inherent nature. Once you realize that fact you will enter a larger world.
What you are talking about is free will but what I'm talking about is the nature of man.
That a supposedly all-powerful creator could have chosen to save everyone, could have chosen to reveal himself to everyone, but instead made Hell the default value, and a guessing-game of unverified belief the only way out.
Pride is the biggest sin of all. You are too proud to admit that you do not know something and that not everything is within the reach of human understanding.
You would have god abolish free will and turn us all into robots? Is faith not important to you? Do you require absolute proof before you will trust friends and family or do you trust them based on your faith in them?
Being a believer does not mean that you have no doubts but you do give the Creator the benefit of the doubt as you would give to anyone else that you trust.
Where do you get the MIthranism connection? Is is because Asland was a Lion instead of a human? Jesus is referred to as the Lion of Judea. If CS. Lewis had written with Mithranism in mind, I think he would have said so.
I'm guessing that you lack a deep enough familiarity with Christianity in general and its symbolism. Either that or you are just trolling.
Are you trying to tell me that you wasted your money to critic the movie? I went to see the movie to "enjoy" the experience and follow the "plot" and general flow of the story. I did not notice any flaws as I was not looking for them. Do you over analyze all movies you go to for effects quality? You must really be a lot of fun at parties then.
Maybe people should see the movie and decide for themselves or ask a friend they trust to see in and let them know if it's worth it instead of listening to someone so obviously biased as you are.
Alternatively, they could read the book and then decide whether or not to see it based on how the story plays out.
You may be too blinded by hate to see that you are every bit as bad as what you claim this guy to be.
This story is about the OS X version of Google Earth. MSFT's answer does not work on Safari which is the dominant browser on OS X. Maybe you are confusing Google earth with Google Maps? In any event, I cannot see how decades old aerial photography can compare with recently updated (within last two months) satellite imagery. If you were to try Google Earth, you would find that it sports higher resolution imagines than their google maps service.
What about a transition period? How will his replacement cope by being thrown to the wolves so to speak? A more prudent approach would have been to remove most of his access so that he could still create documentation and send email. It does not sound like this guy was disgruntled. If he had been, the damage would have been done before notice was given. There is no reason for such a harsh reaction. I would have considered it an insult to my honour.
Then all someone has to do is bribe the US government to label this guy as a potential terrorist and send him to Guantanamo Bay. End of patent problems.
Well, in this case, they are actually designing an actual "product" whereas EOLAS does not even design algorithms. All they are doing is licensing a vague "concept" to other companies. If they were actively writing software, libraries or code segments and licensing it, that would be actively producing something.
I'm asking for either licensing of software in conjunction with patents (in the case of software patents) or at least a proof of concept. I certainly do not think patents on entire categories of software should be granted as was done in this case.
Were they talking about DVRs? Windows Media Centre may include a DVR functionality as one of its features but that is not its main focus. The main focus seems to be displaying digital media from your computer on your TV. If all you wanted was a DVR, a TiVO would be a better way to go.
Why do you people insist on over complicating things by trying to making something that does everything? Haven't you ever heard of the phrase "jack of all trades and a master of none"? This is exactly what Windows Media Centre has turned out to be. It fails as a consumer device for the masses because it is overly complicated and does not do anything particularly well. Now before you all jump down my throat on me on this. I measure the success of a consumer device on not just quality of output but also ease of use.
These guys don't have any actual products but rather some vague patents that should never have been granted given prior art.
They are parasites feeding off the innovation of other companies. Folks, this does not just affect ActiveX but every other plug-in technology and applets.
There really should be an RICO-like law to prevent people from forming companies whose sole revenue source is through patents. They should be required to be actively producing something in the area they have patents in. This is nothing more than corporate racketeering.
How many people haven't updated Windows to SP2 still??
Probably a lot of business have not. We have not rolled out SP2 at work yet and probably never will. We rely on exterprise level security tools rather than the crap MSFT provides in SP2 and the former is less likely to break the software we use.
I'm sorry but that is a strawman argument. Most of those security flaws (not counting Safari) are for programs which the average desktop user would not enable. The server specific flaws are indeed a flaw but you would expect that any business would have performed a security audit and ensured that they had proper "hardware" firewall protections in place to prevent unauthorized access by external hots.
You are not free to give away a copies lot of things unless you are either the author of said work or the author has released their work under a license which grants distribution rights to other people.
This does not limit your freedom one bit to it rather, it is about respecting the rights of others and their property. They have the freedom to place limits on their works.
Every license has its own restrictions with regard to what "rights" it grants the end user. This includes the GPL and LGPL.
Where do you get the idea that you should be granted rights to distribute and modify the works of others without their explicit permission to do so? An author of any work as to explicitly grant you those rights through a license.
Are you talking about freedom in classical definition of the world or the GNU/Freedom slang term? If the former, you are free to use it for what it was intended for without restriction.
The last time I checked, software does not have rights to freedom given that it is a non-entity. It is property of its creator. That creator has the right/freedom to release it under whatever license he/she choose.
It is the perversion of language regarding "freedom" which is turning people off linux and other open source software. RMS and his followers are what is keeping linux off the desktop.
It seems to be clear that the intent was to have the actual source code and not just a copy of the software. Also, it isn't at all clear if that means the underlying platform or just the voting application on top of it, but why take a chance. And really, what would be the point of having access to half of the software stack?
I think you guys are really reaching here. I don't see how what OS an application has to do with it. Providing the source code for the application should be enough. If Diebold is really taking this position, I think they are doing so to spread FUD. I don't think the state regulators care about the OS but rather the software used to control the voting machine. For you guys to buy into this is quite unfortunate and you are only helping Diebolds case by being sucked in by it.
This topic is pretty universal. Sure, there are some cultural differences which can cause a greater propensity towards introverted personality traits (ie. my original homeland Finland). Having said that, I don't think you gave much thought into your post and it has the appearance of Anti-US troll posts commonly found on here. Are you an extrovert by any chance?
BTW. I'm speaking as a Canadian in case you thought I was an American.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are told everything, where is your choice? Where is the need to believe or have faith? If you had the nature of the universe all laid out for you, would you have any free will to chose to believe? No. Would you have the capacity to learn and grow? No.
I hope you one day develop an open mind about things and admit that you do not have all the answers. None of us do.
Jesus did not come to save those who believe they do not need saving but rather to save those people who knew that they were not perfect.
The last movie where I thought the CG effect were awful would have to be The Mummy Returns but that was because the plot was quite weak.
The replies on IMDB from are meaningless as they do not represent the average moviegoer. They are a small vocal minority of armchair movie editors with no real experience developing a feature movie with a proper plotline.
If you considered The Mummy Returns or any of the last three Star Wars movies as better than this, then obviously you care more about effects over plot and dialogue.
What you are talking about is free will but what I'm talking about is the nature of man.
Pride is the biggest sin of all. You are too proud to admit that you do not know something and that not everything is within the reach of human understanding.
You would have god abolish free will and turn us all into robots? Is faith not important to you? Do you require absolute proof before you will trust friends and family or do you trust them based on your faith in them?
Being a believer does not mean that you have no doubts but you do give the Creator the benefit of the doubt as you would give to anyone else that you trust.
I'm guessing that you lack a deep enough familiarity with Christianity in general and its symbolism. Either that or you are just trolling.
Are you trying to tell me that you wasted your money to critic the movie? I went to see the movie to "enjoy" the experience and follow the "plot" and general flow of the story. I did not notice any flaws as I was not looking for them. Do you over analyze all movies you go to for effects quality? You must really be a lot of fun at parties then.
Alternatively, they could read the book and then decide whether or not to see it based on how the story plays out.
You may be too blinded by hate to see that you are every bit as bad as what you claim this guy to be.
This story is about the OS X version of Google Earth. MSFT's answer does not work on Safari which is the dominant browser on OS X. Maybe you are confusing Google earth with Google Maps? In any event, I cannot see how decades old aerial photography can compare with recently updated (within last two months) satellite imagery. If you were to try Google Earth, you would find that it sports higher resolution imagines than their google maps service.
If so, how can Creative claim a patent on technology both companies licensed from a third-party?
What about a transition period? How will his replacement cope by being thrown to the wolves so to speak? A more prudent approach would have been to remove most of his access so that he could still create documentation and send email. It does not sound like this guy was disgruntled. If he had been, the damage would have been done before notice was given. There is no reason for such a harsh reaction. I would have considered it an insult to my honour.
That president was fired soon after that show and replaced by some british dude.
Isn't that different? Isn't MSFT still producing something?
Then all someone has to do is bribe the US government to label this guy as a potential terrorist and send him to Guantanamo Bay. End of patent problems.
I'm asking for either licensing of software in conjunction with patents (in the case of software patents) or at least a proof of concept. I certainly do not think patents on entire categories of software should be granted as was done in this case.
Why? If people like their Tivos, why replace it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Why do you people insist on over complicating things by trying to making something that does everything? Haven't you ever heard of the phrase "jack of all trades and a master of none"? This is exactly what Windows Media Centre has turned out to be. It fails as a consumer device for the masses because it is overly complicated and does not do anything particularly well. Now before you all jump down my throat on me on this. I measure the success of a consumer device on not just quality of output but also ease of use.
They are parasites feeding off the innovation of other companies. Folks, this does not just affect ActiveX but every other plug-in technology and applets.
There really should be an RICO-like law to prevent people from forming companies whose sole revenue source is through patents. They should be required to be actively producing something in the area they have patents in. This is nothing more than corporate racketeering.
Probably a lot of business have not. We have not rolled out SP2 at work yet and probably never will. We rely on exterprise level security tools rather than the crap MSFT provides in SP2 and the former is less likely to break the software we use.
I'm sorry but that is a strawman argument. Most of those security flaws (not counting Safari) are for programs which the average desktop user would not enable. The server specific flaws are indeed a flaw but you would expect that any business would have performed a security audit and ensured that they had proper "hardware" firewall protections in place to prevent unauthorized access by external hots.
This does not limit your freedom one bit to it rather, it is about respecting the rights of others and their property. They have the freedom to place limits on their works.
Every license has its own restrictions with regard to what "rights" it grants the end user. This includes the GPL and LGPL.
Where do you get the idea that you should be granted rights to distribute and modify the works of others without their explicit permission to do so? An author of any work as to explicitly grant you those rights through a license.
The last time I checked, software does not have rights to freedom given that it is a non-entity. It is property of its creator. That creator has the right/freedom to release it under whatever license he/she choose.
It is the perversion of language regarding "freedom" which is turning people off linux and other open source software. RMS and his followers are what is keeping linux off the desktop.
I think you guys are really reaching here. I don't see how what OS an application has to do with it. Providing the source code for the application should be enough. If Diebold is really taking this position, I think they are doing so to spread FUD. I don't think the state regulators care about the OS but rather the software used to control the voting machine. For you guys to buy into this is quite unfortunate and you are only helping Diebolds case by being sucked in by it.
Same diff. With all those voices in his head, he does not need friends.
BTW. I'm speaking as a Canadian in case you thought I was an American.