But ignorance of the fact that this nation was created by christians is exactly that, ignorance.
Actually, the top cell in the American Revolution had, maximum, one Christian in it. Benjamin Franklin was agnostic, publically, so far as I know, ad had secret dealings with the infamous devil-worshippers known as the Hell-Fire Club in Europe. Through his conections there he was able to procure France's support of the revolution. George Washington was likely a christian, but I do not know for sure. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was also publically an Atheist, if I recall correctly.
Sadly, the only source I can cite for any of this information is the Satanic Bible, where Anton LaVey speculates as to what Ben Franklin's real involvement with the Hell-Fire club was, but even he doesn't go so far as to try to say what it was, beyond speculation.
However, Christians forcing their beliefs on others in this country are quite clear (ad I'm not likely to provide sources for this stuff, but it is readily available on Gooogle).
Last witchcraft laws were pulled from the books in 1954, or thereabouts. These laws came from the passage in the bible that says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with the beast shall surely be put to death" (Quote courtesy of Kind Diamond)
Current senate committee whose job is to determine if there are enough laws to prevent homosexuals from getting married.
Manifest Destiny, defined as the belief that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants has a God-given right to rule this country from sea to shining sea.
The salem Witch Trials (need I say more?)
Satanism itself is actually outlawed in many jurisdictions.
The phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance.
The fact that the President and CEO of the federal government was take an oath on the Holy Bible before he can take office.
The list goes on...
Fact is, this country has a fundamentalist streak a mile wide that really threatens from time to time to turn this country into the country overthrown in Revolt in 2100. It's a serious problem. Stranger in a Strange Land was very critical of that fact, and as such was banned from many state-owned libraries.
If you change the following sentence:
But ignorance of the fact that this nation was created by christians is exactly that, ignorance.
To read instead,
But ignorance of the fact that this nation was conquered by christians is exactly that, ignorance.
I will whole-heartedly agree with you. However, coming from a small town and not being a Christian, I don't think you are fully aware of what happens in this country to people who are not Christian. Subjectively, at least, I can testify that the persecution continues.
When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies who were afraid to speak their minds because they might be sued by some big corporation? Yeah, they might sue, and you might have to defend a lawsuit if what you speak is not the truth. What one must do to speak out on any given subject, including this one, is to educate oneself!
Ah, indeed, the legacy of McCarthy has really fucked this place up. As always, some fanatical nut with a loud mouth got himself heard and created a fuss, and the corporations inherited the techniques and continue to use them. Whoever said that America beats whatever comes in second-best has obviously ever seen what comes in second-best. (That's a self-contradictory sentence)
If you threaten to kill a horse, that is "conspiracy to commit equinicide," a class-D felony.
Ah, but if you threaten to kill a high horse, that is "conspiring to commit metaphoricide". Or, more specifically (you'll have to google for the laws to see if it makes a difference in sentencing), "conspiring to commit metaphorical equinicide". That's just if you threaten. Then theres "Capital metaphorical equinicide" if you actually kill the high horse for money, or "second-degree aggravated metaphorical equinicide", which is if you threaten to kill the high horse for months, then you go and kill it with a weapon. I think. Like I said, you'll have to google for specifics, but I seem to recall the law beig very clear on the matter.
These laws were originally passed by Republicans, actually, because they were afraid the Democrats would try to commit genocide in the infamous GOP high horse stables, but now both parties require the defense that these laws provide.
That's not true. A huge number of zoonotic viruses (ie. found in an animal resevoir) cause cancer. A smaller subset of cancer causing viruses have been located in humans including:
All good facts, and obviously something I didn't know before. However, my point was that cancer exists independently of virii (viruses for those that don't like the fact that English is a bastard language with words from many other languages, and none of its own) and that you can get cancer without the existence of a corresponding virus. Therefore, being sick with so-called lesser diseases can help you when you get hit with a bigger disease. Mostly in frame-of-mind, granted, but take Hodgkin's disease. Hodgkin's affects your immune system (also referred to as lymph cancer or something like that). Therefore, as the cancer advances, the broader your immune system's experience, the more likely you are to be able to avoid specific diseases while the cancer advances. A person with less exposure to other diseases is more likely to be killed earlier than a person with more worldly experience fighting disease.
So can't a person enjoy consesual sex unless she was raped before? Can't you appreciate freedom unless you where imprisoned? IME people who experience evil not always are able to appreciate good after it, sometimes they're scarred permanently. People don't need to eat crap to realize that *insert your favorite food here* is delicious;)
These are very simplistic examples. Instead of arguing, I challenge you to come up with other "evil" acts that might make you directly understand the value of consensual sex, and freedom. When you finish that, list 3 people for each category that you know who has experienced *at least* one of those things on your list. Then go to these people and ask them how *insert experience here* has affected their life.
It is misleading to think of the body getting "stronger" by fighting viruses. It's not like lifting weights. Immunity is fairly selective for a particular microorganism. So fighting a particular type of virus just makes you better at fighting that kind of virus. There are a few cases where there is cross-immunity, and you can develop an immunity to a dangerous virus by fighting a less-dangerous one, the classic example being smallpox and vaccinia (cowpox). But being vaccinated against smallpox won't help you at all in fighting influenza.
All true, however, in fighting disease, your mental condition plays a critical role. If you have experience fighting disease already (chicken pox, the flu, and other regular diseases kids get, and the ones that adults get), then when you get something like cancer, you're mentally more suited to fighting, and more likely to win. So, being vaccinated against the disease doesn't help you except against that disease, (besides keeping you alive, since some of these diseases would kill you if you weren't vaccinated) but getting a disease, fighting it, and defeating it, helps to prepare you for progressively more difficult struggles.
I suppose his argument could be supported more by comparing computers systems and their interactions to an evolving system. A simple, primitive, and growing system faces challenges which, for the most part, allow it to evolve. Its base medium, biological or electronical is irrelevant, although much of thier bases is similar anyhow. In biological systems, viruses develop as a counterpart to some other biological medium (namely cell material) that they can interact with for good or bad...which is also irrelevant. Computer viruses also are developed as a counterpart to some other "good" system.
I think one of the things that has been missed in his comparison (even though I think it was flawed, as well, after I finally read the article when the slashdotters were done with it) is that he made the internet as a whole out to be comparable to the entire organism. Many of the counters to his comparison seem to be focussing on computers as individual entities, but in his comparison, each computer is just a cell on the internet. Therefore, we humans play a miniscule role each in the maintaining of the health of the internet as a whole. We could be the lymph system, as well as other parts, in his comparison. Of course, where I think he was flawed was comparing AV software to the immune system. I think that's flawed for a lot of reasons that I really don't want to go into right now.:)
so then your view is that happiness comes from suffering? how very puritanical (in the religious sense) of you. white without black is still white, similarly is happiness truly happiness without negative to contrast it.
Interesting that you call it puritanical. It's also Taoist. It's not so much that happiness comes from suffering; happiness can stand on its own in an objective fashion, but in order to gain subjective appreciation of your happiness, you must have knowledge of and/or experience with sadness (and/or other negative emotions).
not having the negative in the first place would, of course, be much better.
I have to disagree with you.:)
First, in the case of virii and bacteria (forgetting for the moment that 95% of bacteria are beneficial, but anti-bacterial soap doesn't know that), our bodies do get stronger fighting them. Without them, would our bodies be strong enough to fight off other things? How much of our body's overall strength does the ability to fight disease and practice fighting it actually contribute to? Keep in mind that some diseases (most notably cancer) are not caused by either virus or bacteria, yet our centuries of medical research fighting vrii and bacteria have given us a pretty good start to fighting cancer. Without that research? Without that understanding? Well, think: Cancer in the 19th century.:)
In a more general situation, is it in your philosophy that it's possible to appreciate the positive without at least an understanding of the negative? It has been my subjective experience, as well as my objective oberservation of what amounts to a less than perfect statistical universe, that people don't fully appreciate the positive things in their lives without actually experiencing the corresponding negatives. It seems like good lacks definition without evil providing a frame of reference. How can you know how good you have it if it's not even possible to have it any other way?
It's prety clear that Richard Stallman wanted to create something FOR the people.
Yes, it's pretty clear that the thing he wanted to create FOR the people is called GNU, and it's a free operating system. He created the GPL to protect GNU, and to be applied to 3rd party software written for GNU and other OSs. He didn't set out to create the GPL, he only created it when it became necessary to have a more general license that could be applied more easily.
Required to make source available without prior purchase of binaries?
No. Also not required to make source publically available, only required to make it available to anyone to whom you provide the binary.
For example, MS could include the complete windows source code on the CD, never say anything about it, and few would ever notice. I know that *I* haven't looked that closely at a Windows CD.
The temperature of the coffee was so high, that she had to have reconstructive surgery on her vagina!
Um, why was she putting scalding hot coffee into her vagina, anyway? I could see it hurting her clitoris, either/both labia, or even her perenium, but her vagina? Was she fucking this cup of coffee, or just playig with it?
According to the Aussie govt (http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/brochures/hot_water.html ), hot water at just 55 deg celcius can scald a child within 10 seconds. 60 deg can cause a scald within 1 second.
Scalding a child with thin, soft, undeveloped skin is totally different than scalding a grown woman, even if it's her thighs. You're also supposed to make sure you water heater is set to 120 degrees F when you have a newborn in the house, to prevent them from getting scalded by water at temperatures that doesn't scald an adult. You have to actually *look* at the gauge, because you *can't* feel it. You're an adult, the water does't hurt you the way it does your kid.
That said, I regularly eat a lot of things at temperatures approaching 180 F. Chicken isn't safe to eat unless it's been cooked to at least 160, but 180 is best because there's the right balance between being cooked (and the flavor of the spices cooking in) and still being juicy. Restaurants are required to have holding temperatures > 150 on all of their food. I realize the difference between these temperatures is great, but it's not uncommon for you to get a fresh batch of fries that still have some hot oil on them. The oil, of course, is heated to 350 degrees, sometimes 375, and is likely to be over 200 when you put the first fresh fry in your mouth (it's not uncommon, but you have to go at the right time to get it that way).
Besides, I have pulled lids off of pans of boiling water and gotten the steam burns in 2-3 seconds that are far *worse* than anything that simply hot water can do to you. First you get the hot steam burning you. Then you have the steam condensing and dumping all kinds of heat into your skin. Then you have hot water continuing to burn you. I'm having a hard time believig that 180 degree water can be all that bad, by comparison.
I was thinking more of Darth Maul. Unpleasant looking, moderately evil, and surrounded my idiots.
Actually, I read farther down and saw someone else refer to McBride with a Darth title, and I read that as McBride being just a Sith lord. I still don't think he's got enough brains to have even rudimentary control over the force, and since he's a puppet he could never control anything as powerful as the force (mind you that the "power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force."). So, I apologize for jumping on you for comparing Darl McBride in a favorable fashion to my favorite fictional character, but I'm happy to see you agree with me anyway.:)
I have a question though...I cant abide with darl being "king" so with him on the joker who gets the king?
See, it's like this. Darl will be a Jack. SOme asshole from Canopy Group will be Queen, and Bill Gates will be King. RMS, Linus Torvalds, Bruce Perens, and ESR will be the four aces. Or they'll all be spades, depending on what game you prefer (I prefer spades, personally, so I'd like to be able to trump any suit with my RMS card, you know?). Hearts will just be pictures of stock certificates for SCO (because you're supposed to get rid of them). That might make Darl the Queen of Spades, but it would overvalue him in the game of spades.
Honey, I think he needs a new McBride, this one is all poopy.
I'd just like to point out that most parents I've seen stop using the word "poopy" before their kids actually start learning language. That's why so many young kids know what "shit" means.
Well, given that Darth McBride has blown all the company's money
Allow me to point out that Darl McBride is *nothing* like Darth Vader. Darth Vader was intelligent, creative, and resourceful. He was also very much an individual (let's not forget his attempted betrayal of the Emporer in Empire Strikes Back, right after his declaration that he is Luke's father). He also had the power to enforce whatever whims he came up with.
I think you're thinking of the wrong document. The GPL is BY Richard Stallman (and his lawyers), and FOR GNU. We just happen to have permission to use it, so long as we don't change it, because it's copyrighted, too.
There are good, technical reasons for this, actually. Office is driven by a bunch of ActiveX objects, which links them to the base OS in a *big way*. Now, I realize that ActiveX is just a plugin architecture, and it's really just a wrapper around COM, and that MS uses it to ensure interoperability between their apps, but more often than not, the "Office" holes seem to be holes that are discovered in office, but they're actually holes in ActiveX, which is part of the OS. So yes, you can consider many Office holes as Windows holes, in a fashion that is quite different from an XPCOM hole in Mozilla being considered an OS hole, or a hole in OO.o being considered an OS hole, or a hole in PHP being considered an OS hole, etc.
If there are yahoos around here who think calling it "GNU/Linux" is necessary because the userspace is a part of the operating system, then the holes in its primary userspace apps count as well.
This makes sense, as long as the holes themselves are referred to as holes in the GNU/Linux operating system. Remember, Linux is just the kernel, so if you call a hole a "hole in Linux", you are referring to a hole in the kernel, but if you call it a "hole in GNU/Linux", you are referring to a hole in the OS. Since the distributions themselves vary, however, you can't really call a hole a "hole in GNU/Linux" unless every single GNU/Linux distribution includes the software that has the hole. That's not even considering whether or not the software is part of the default installation, or is an optional package (IIS holes were separate from Windows holes until MS installed and activated IIS on XP by default). So, if Mandrake Linux doesn't contain OPenSSH (which it does, this is just an example), then you can't very well imply that an OpenSSH hole is a hole in Mandrake Linux, which you would do if you referred to it as a "hole in GNU/Linux". Since it's far too pedantic to try to dig up all the distributions that include the offending software, it seems to me that it's just plain easier to keep the apps separate from the OS when referring to vulnerabilities, and allowing the users to determine whether or not they're vulnerable.
Man, this would be a good time for E.B. to run a promotion for strings. "And if your X-Mailer is pine, Kmail or mutt, you get an extra set FREE!!"
I'm all over that, dude. I've been playing Power Slinkys for 10 years, and I've no intention of stopping. Now let's see if we can get BC Rich running Free Software, so I can buy a bass.:)
Slashdot Mirror
But ignorance of the fact that this nation was created by christians is exactly that, ignorance.
Actually, the top cell in the American Revolution had, maximum, one Christian in it. Benjamin Franklin was agnostic, publically, so far as I know, ad had secret dealings with the infamous devil-worshippers known as the Hell-Fire Club in Europe. Through his conections there he was able to procure France's support of the revolution. George Washington was likely a christian, but I do not know for sure. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was also publically an Atheist, if I recall correctly.
Sadly, the only source I can cite for any of this information is the Satanic Bible, where Anton LaVey speculates as to what Ben Franklin's real involvement with the Hell-Fire club was, but even he doesn't go so far as to try to say what it was, beyond speculation.
However, Christians forcing their beliefs on others in this country are quite clear (ad I'm not likely to provide sources for this stuff, but it is readily available on Gooogle).
Fact is, this country has a fundamentalist streak a mile wide that really threatens from time to time to turn this country into the country overthrown in Revolt in 2100. It's a serious problem. Stranger in a Strange Land was very critical of that fact, and as such was banned from many state-owned libraries.
If you change the following sentence:
But ignorance of the fact that this nation was created by christians is exactly that, ignorance.
To read instead,
But ignorance of the fact that this nation was conquered by christians is exactly that, ignorance.
I will whole-heartedly agree with you. However, coming from a small town and not being a Christian, I don't think you are fully aware of what happens in this country to people who are not Christian. Subjectively, at least, I can testify that the persecution continues.
When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies who were afraid to speak their minds because they might be sued by some big corporation? Yeah, they might sue, and you might have to defend a lawsuit if what you speak is not the truth. What one must do to speak out on any given subject, including this one, is to educate oneself!
Ah, indeed, the legacy of McCarthy has really fucked this place up. As always, some fanatical nut with a loud mouth got himself heard and created a fuss, and the corporations inherited the techniques and continue to use them. Whoever said that America beats whatever comes in second-best has obviously ever seen what comes in second-best. (That's a self-contradictory sentence)
If you threaten to kill a horse, that is "conspiracy to commit equinicide," a class-D felony.
Ah, but if you threaten to kill a high horse, that is "conspiring to commit metaphoricide". Or, more specifically (you'll have to google for the laws to see if it makes a difference in sentencing), "conspiring to commit metaphorical equinicide". That's just if you threaten. Then theres "Capital metaphorical equinicide" if you actually kill the high horse for money, or "second-degree aggravated metaphorical equinicide", which is if you threaten to kill the high horse for months, then you go and kill it with a weapon. I think. Like I said, you'll have to google for specifics, but I seem to recall the law beig very clear on the matter.
These laws were originally passed by Republicans, actually, because they were afraid the Democrats would try to commit genocide in the infamous GOP high horse stables, but now both parties require the defense that these laws provide.
That's not true. A huge number of zoonotic viruses (ie. found in an animal resevoir) cause cancer. A smaller subset of cancer causing viruses have been located in humans including:
All good facts, and obviously something I didn't know before. However, my point was that cancer exists independently of virii (viruses for those that don't like the fact that English is a bastard language with words from many other languages, and none of its own) and that you can get cancer without the existence of a corresponding virus. Therefore, being sick with so-called lesser diseases can help you when you get hit with a bigger disease. Mostly in frame-of-mind, granted, but take Hodgkin's disease. Hodgkin's affects your immune system (also referred to as lymph cancer or something like that). Therefore, as the cancer advances, the broader your immune system's experience, the more likely you are to be able to avoid specific diseases while the cancer advances. A person with less exposure to other diseases is more likely to be killed earlier than a person with more worldly experience fighting disease.
So can't a person enjoy consesual sex unless she was raped before? Can't you appreciate freedom unless you where imprisoned? IME people who experience evil not always are able to appreciate good after it, sometimes they're scarred permanently. People don't need to eat crap to realize that *insert your favorite food here* is delicious ;)
These are very simplistic examples. Instead of arguing, I challenge you to come up with other "evil" acts that might make you directly understand the value of consensual sex, and freedom. When you finish that, list 3 people for each category that you know who has experienced *at least* one of those things on your list. Then go to these people and ask them how *insert experience here* has affected their life.
It is misleading to think of the body getting "stronger" by fighting viruses. It's not like lifting weights. Immunity is fairly selective for a particular microorganism. So fighting a particular type of virus just makes you better at fighting that kind of virus. There are a few cases where there is cross-immunity, and you can develop an immunity to a dangerous virus by fighting a less-dangerous one, the classic example being smallpox and vaccinia (cowpox). But being vaccinated against smallpox won't help you at all in fighting influenza.
All true, however, in fighting disease, your mental condition plays a critical role. If you have experience fighting disease already (chicken pox, the flu, and other regular diseases kids get, and the ones that adults get), then when you get something like cancer, you're mentally more suited to fighting, and more likely to win. So, being vaccinated against the disease doesn't help you except against that disease, (besides keeping you alive, since some of these diseases would kill you if you weren't vaccinated) but getting a disease, fighting it, and defeating it, helps to prepare you for progressively more difficult struggles.
I suppose his argument could be supported more by comparing computers systems and their interactions to an evolving system. A simple, primitive, and growing system faces challenges which, for the most part, allow it to evolve. Its base medium, biological or electronical is irrelevant, although much of thier bases is similar anyhow. In biological systems, viruses develop as a counterpart to some other biological medium (namely cell material) that they can interact with for good or bad...which is also irrelevant. Computer viruses also are developed as a counterpart to some other "good" system.
I think one of the things that has been missed in his comparison (even though I think it was flawed, as well, after I finally read the article when the slashdotters were done with it) is that he made the internet as a whole out to be comparable to the entire organism. Many of the counters to his comparison seem to be focussing on computers as individual entities, but in his comparison, each computer is just a cell on the internet. Therefore, we humans play a miniscule role each in the maintaining of the health of the internet as a whole. We could be the lymph system, as well as other parts, in his comparison. Of course, where I think he was flawed was comparing AV software to the immune system. I think that's flawed for a lot of reasons that I really don't want to go into right now. :)
so then your view is that happiness comes from suffering? how very puritanical (in the religious sense) of you. white without black is still white, similarly is happiness truly happiness without negative to contrast it.
Interesting that you call it puritanical. It's also Taoist. It's not so much that happiness comes from suffering; happiness can stand on its own in an objective fashion, but in order to gain subjective appreciation of your happiness, you must have knowledge of and/or experience with sadness (and/or other negative emotions).
Rather offtopic but FYI 'Breast cancer virus' found
Thank you for that link. My wife's family has a history of breast cancer, so I've sent the link to my wife so she can distribute it.
Allow me to engage in self-gratifying clarification of your post that you may or may not endorse.
Cells are not individually sentient, users are.
SHould be:
Cells are not individually sentient, users might be, but scientists have yet to offer incontrovertible evidence of this.
not having the negative in the first place would, of course, be much better.
I have to disagree with you. :)
First, in the case of virii and bacteria (forgetting for the moment that 95% of bacteria are beneficial, but anti-bacterial soap doesn't know that), our bodies do get stronger fighting them. Without them, would our bodies be strong enough to fight off other things? How much of our body's overall strength does the ability to fight disease and practice fighting it actually contribute to? Keep in mind that some diseases (most notably cancer) are not caused by either virus or bacteria, yet our centuries of medical research fighting vrii and bacteria have given us a pretty good start to fighting cancer. Without that research? Without that understanding? Well, think: Cancer in the 19th century. :)
In a more general situation, is it in your philosophy that it's possible to appreciate the positive without at least an understanding of the negative? It has been my subjective experience, as well as my objective oberservation of what amounts to a less than perfect statistical universe, that people don't fully appreciate the positive things in their lives without actually experiencing the corresponding negatives. It seems like good lacks definition without evil providing a frame of reference. How can you know how good you have it if it's not even possible to have it any other way?
GNU clearPath?
This is flamebait, so mods should make sure to mod it as such.
I'm thinkig about starting a project and callig it GNV, for GNV's Not Vapor.
It's prety clear that Richard Stallman wanted to create something FOR the people.
Yes, it's pretty clear that the thing he wanted to create FOR the people is called GNU, and it's a free operating system. He created the GPL to protect GNU, and to be applied to 3rd party software written for GNU and other OSs. He didn't set out to create the GPL, he only created it when it became necessary to have a more general license that could be applied more easily.
No, if he were french he'd have given up already
He *must* be French, else he would've known to go after Mandrake instead of IBM, if he wanted to win. Ergo, he *must* want to lose.
Required to make source available without prior purchase of binaries?
No. Also not required to make source publically available, only required to make it available to anyone to whom you provide the binary.
For example, MS could include the complete windows source code on the CD, never say anything about it, and few would ever notice. I know that *I* haven't looked that closely at a Windows CD.
The temperature of the coffee was so high, that she had to have reconstructive surgery on her vagina!
Um, why was she putting scalding hot coffee into her vagina, anyway? I could see it hurting her clitoris, either/both labia, or even her perenium, but her vagina? Was she fucking this cup of coffee, or just playig with it?
According to the Aussie govt (http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/brochures/hot_water.html ), hot water at just 55 deg celcius can scald a child within 10 seconds. 60 deg can cause a scald within 1 second.
Scalding a child with thin, soft, undeveloped skin is totally different than scalding a grown woman, even if it's her thighs. You're also supposed to make sure you water heater is set to 120 degrees F when you have a newborn in the house, to prevent them from getting scalded by water at temperatures that doesn't scald an adult. You have to actually *look* at the gauge, because you *can't* feel it. You're an adult, the water does't hurt you the way it does your kid.
That said, I regularly eat a lot of things at temperatures approaching 180 F. Chicken isn't safe to eat unless it's been cooked to at least 160, but 180 is best because there's the right balance between being cooked (and the flavor of the spices cooking in) and still being juicy. Restaurants are required to have holding temperatures > 150 on all of their food. I realize the difference between these temperatures is great, but it's not uncommon for you to get a fresh batch of fries that still have some hot oil on them. The oil, of course, is heated to 350 degrees, sometimes 375, and is likely to be over 200 when you put the first fresh fry in your mouth (it's not uncommon, but you have to go at the right time to get it that way).
Besides, I have pulled lids off of pans of boiling water and gotten the steam burns in 2-3 seconds that are far *worse* than anything that simply hot water can do to you. First you get the hot steam burning you. Then you have the steam condensing and dumping all kinds of heat into your skin. Then you have hot water continuing to burn you. I'm having a hard time believig that 180 degree water can be all that bad, by comparison.
I was thinking more of Darth Maul. Unpleasant looking, moderately evil, and surrounded my idiots.
Actually, I read farther down and saw someone else refer to McBride with a Darth title, and I read that as McBride being just a Sith lord. I still don't think he's got enough brains to have even rudimentary control over the force, and since he's a puppet he could never control anything as powerful as the force (mind you that the "power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force."). So, I apologize for jumping on you for comparing Darl McBride in a favorable fashion to my favorite fictional character, but I'm happy to see you agree with me anyway. :)
I have a question though...I cant abide with darl being "king" so with him on the joker who gets the king?
See, it's like this. Darl will be a Jack. SOme asshole from Canopy Group will be Queen, and Bill Gates will be King. RMS, Linus Torvalds, Bruce Perens, and ESR will be the four aces. Or they'll all be spades, depending on what game you prefer (I prefer spades, personally, so I'd like to be able to trump any suit with my RMS card, you know?). Hearts will just be pictures of stock certificates for SCO (because you're supposed to get rid of them). That might make Darl the Queen of Spades, but it would overvalue him in the game of spades.
Honey, I think he needs a new McBride, this one is all poopy.
I'd just like to point out that most parents I've seen stop using the word "poopy" before their kids actually start learning language. That's why so many young kids know what "shit" means.
Well, given that Darth McBride has blown all the company's money
Allow me to point out that Darl McBride is *nothing* like Darth Vader. Darth Vader was intelligent, creative, and resourceful. He was also very much an individual (let's not forget his attempted betrayal of the Emporer in Empire Strikes Back, right after his declaration that he is Luke's father). He also had the power to enforce whatever whims he came up with.
Nothing at all like Darl McBride. Nothing.
if the GPL is BY the people and FOR the people,
I think you're thinking of the wrong document. The GPL is BY Richard Stallman (and his lawyers), and FOR GNU. We just happen to have permission to use it, so long as we don't change it, because it's copyrighted, too.
Office holes are considered Windows holes,
There are good, technical reasons for this, actually. Office is driven by a bunch of ActiveX objects, which links them to the base OS in a *big way*. Now, I realize that ActiveX is just a plugin architecture, and it's really just a wrapper around COM, and that MS uses it to ensure interoperability between their apps, but more often than not, the "Office" holes seem to be holes that are discovered in office, but they're actually holes in ActiveX, which is part of the OS. So yes, you can consider many Office holes as Windows holes, in a fashion that is quite different from an XPCOM hole in Mozilla being considered an OS hole, or a hole in OO.o being considered an OS hole, or a hole in PHP being considered an OS hole, etc.
If there are yahoos around here who think calling it "GNU/Linux" is necessary because the userspace is a part of the operating system, then the holes in its primary userspace apps count as well.
This makes sense, as long as the holes themselves are referred to as holes in the GNU/Linux operating system. Remember, Linux is just the kernel, so if you call a hole a "hole in Linux", you are referring to a hole in the kernel, but if you call it a "hole in GNU/Linux", you are referring to a hole in the OS. Since the distributions themselves vary, however, you can't really call a hole a "hole in GNU/Linux" unless every single GNU/Linux distribution includes the software that has the hole. That's not even considering whether or not the software is part of the default installation, or is an optional package (IIS holes were separate from Windows holes until MS installed and activated IIS on XP by default). So, if Mandrake Linux doesn't contain OPenSSH (which it does, this is just an example), then you can't very well imply that an OpenSSH hole is a hole in Mandrake Linux, which you would do if you referred to it as a "hole in GNU/Linux". Since it's far too pedantic to try to dig up all the distributions that include the offending software, it seems to me that it's just plain easier to keep the apps separate from the OS when referring to vulnerabilities, and allowing the users to determine whether or not they're vulnerable.
I'm done being pedantic myself, now. :)
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Is this true of Lincoln, Gandhi, Bonaparte, Hitler, da Vinci, Jesus?
Run, rabbit run.
It's an obvious pink floyd quote, dude. although pink floyd may have stolen it from someone else...
Man, this would be a good time for E.B. to run a promotion for strings. "And if your X-Mailer is pine, Kmail or mutt, you get an extra set FREE!!"
I'm all over that, dude. I've been playing Power Slinkys for 10 years, and I've no intention of stopping. Now let's see if we can get BC Rich running Free Software, so I can buy a bass. :)