It's interesting to see the position that Sun is taking. Sun backs OSDL and so is paying a portion of the legal fees to fight SCO. Yet Sun also invested in SCO by purchasing the right to buy a 15% stake in SCO. I guess they're hedging their bets, but I find it amusing that in a roundabout way they are paying for both sides of the legal battle.
The only competitor to Intuits Quickbooks (on Windows) is Microsoft Money
It has been a few years since I've used Quickbooks, but I don't think that Microsoft Money is, or even intended to be, a competitor for it. Quickbooks is accounting software intended for small businesses. It does a/r, a/p, invoices, estimates, etc. Its competitors include Great Plains software (purchased by Microsoft a few years ago), and a few others I can't think of right now.
You can always sue, whether you have a leg to stand on or not. But this may not be a good tactic. If you spend $699 now, and later SCO is determined to be wrong, then SCO probably will declare bankruptcy and nobody will be seeing a $699 (or any other amount) refund.
This cost structure doesn't make much sense. A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't additional 'licenses' be sold at a discount to the first?
Refer to the article, Grad Student's Work Reveals National Infrastructure(here)
This guy used public information to build a very thourough mapping of communication, transportation, power, etc. infrastructure. IIRC, it included cell phone towers.
Of course, this caught the attention of politicians and various agencies, and he can't share his research.
Again you failed to make the distinction. The partial quotes that you supplied (which are slightly misleading without their proper context, but I'll go with them), refer to the mindset of the terrorists. I made that very clear in my previous responses. So what I'm saying is that if someone thinks their act/plan is dangerous and they carry through with it without running from it, then they are acting courageously.
You made the leap to include the outcome of the act itself. Anybody can make their personal judgment about the nobility, honorability, worthiness, righteousness, sanity, etc. of the act itself. Since we're talking suicide bombers here, let's assume that the act includes 1) a suicide and 2) murders of other people (not necessarily in that order). As a person with an ethics system derived from the common ethics of western civilization, I find suicide bombing to be despicable. That's my personal judgment. However, the act (suicide/murder) viewed as an outsider, is not synchronous with the intent of the actor (the terrorist). Making the leap to connect "The terrorists... act bravely" to "...it is valiant to murder" is not valid. Do you see what I'm saying? It's a fine line distinguishing the intent and the outcome, but to say that someone is a coward questions their intent (their ability to face the danger), not the quality of the outcome of their action.
Please show me where you think I said that it is valiant to murder. You are placing words in my argument that were not there. And I'm not saying that the literal word 'valiant' wasn't in my argument; instead I'm saying that there is nothing in my argument to indicate that I think murder is valiant. I don't. I think it's terrible, whether committed by a suicide bomber, a terrorist on an airplane, an everyday criminal, or a state-sanctioned body.
What you clearly can't see is the difference between your judgment of the terrorists' motives and how the terrorists (most likely) were acting according to their own beliefs. You sitting there and insulting them (or me) will not, and can not, change their acts to cowardice. If they see the danger they are putting themselves into, and they carry through with their actions, then they are not cowards.
Since you are obviously trying to be sensationalistic instead of rational, you should really modify your scenario to include a few elderly nuns, a nobel prize winner, and the cast of the local 4H club production of West Side Story.
'Coward' means, according to the dictionary, "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." 'Brave' means, according to the same dictionary, "1. (adj) Possessing or displaying courage, valiant. 2. (v) To undergo or face courageously." Terrorists in general (including suicide bombers, since you're focusing on them), most likely realize the danger of the situation that they are putting themselves into. They (generally) carry through with the situation. Therefore, they do not show ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. To say that they are cowards is directly contradictory to the meaning of the word 'coward'. Further, since the terrorists do (generally speaking) carry through with their actions without running from their purpose as a coward would do, they undergo those actions courageously. Therefore, according to the definition of the word, they act bravely.
All outside judgments of ethics and honorability of their actions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they act courageously or bravely.
Please stop deliberately misusing words in an attempt to further your agenda.
Murdering a defenseless, weaponless 5-year old girl is not brave or heroic. However, performing a non-brave action in preference to the brave alternative does not make one a coward. Running from a dangerous situation, when faced with one, makes one a coward. This is not a world where if you are not classified at an extreme (e.g. brave), you are automatically classified as the opposite (e.g. coward). Following that logic, you could say that if you are not hot, you are cold.
The braveness of an action is determined exclusively by the person performing the action. If one thinks something is not brave, but another person is performing the action and that other person considers it a courageous, brave action, then that is what it is. An outside judgment of the ethics / honorability / braveness, etc. has no bearing on whether or not the person performing the action did so with courage. This is my guess (which I obviously can't corroborate): The terrorists probably recognize the supreme danger of their situation. They approach the situation and carry out their plans. If they in fact recognize the danger beforehand, that means that they act bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly). So, as an outsider making a judgment on their actions, I can say that they act, in my opinion, despicably, but I have no right to say they act cowardly.
I wish I had seen this comment earlier. I've already moderated in this topic, but I'll give up those points to comment on this.
Look up 'coward' in the dictionary. The one I looked in defines it as:
"One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain."
Further, 'cowardice' is defined as: 1.Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. 2. Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit. 3. The trait of lacking courage.
And 'cowardly' is: Exhibiting the characterstics of a coward, particularly ignoble fear.
Sneaking in some where and killing non-combatants is pretty much solidly within my definition of cowardly.
Cowardice has nothing to do with killing non-combatants vs. killing combatants vs. not killing anybody.
Willingness to die does not equate with courage.
That's right. Being willing to die is not the same as being courageous. But dying, whether through suicide, war or other causes, also does not equate with cowardice.
If these people weren't cowards, they would pick up a rifle and fight soldiers, not children.
The target of their animosity is irrelevant to whether or not they are cowards. I don't think you'll deny that the terrorists generally put themselves in dangerous situations when committing their acts of terror. If they do not show ignoble fear in the face of that danger (i.e. if they carry out their intended actions), they are not cowards.
From the article, "SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX..." Whether Linux was made from scratch or not, SCO is claiming that it was an unauthorized derivative. I don't know how the legal definition of derivative will play into this, but clearly SCO thinks that they have some control over who makes Unix-like operating systems.
One specific embarrassment to remove is given on page 8 of the linked pdf:
vector<list<int>>
Compilers choke on that, assuming that the >> at the end is the operator >>, not closing the template declaration. To make it work correctly you have to say > > (with a space in between). That makes it look odd: vector<list<int> >
1. Performing a non-brave action in preference to the brave alternative does not make one a coward. Running from a dangerous situation, when faced with one, makes one a coward. This is not a world where if you are not classified at an extreme (e.g. brave), you are automatically classified as the opposite (e.g. coward). Following that logic, you could say that if you are not hot, you are cold.
2. The braveness of an action is determined exclusively by the person performing the action. If one thinks something is not brave, but another person is performing the action and that other person considers it a courageous, brave action, then that is what it is. An outside judgment of the ethics / honorability / braveness, etc. has no bearing on whether or not the person performing the action did so with courage. This is my guess (which I obviously can't corroborate): The terrorists probably recognized the supreme danger of their situation. They approached it and carried out their plan. If they in fact recognized the danger beforehand, that means that they acted bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly). So, as an outsider making a judgment on their actions, I can say that they were despicable, but I have no right to say they acted cowardly.
Of course they could have attacked a dangerous foe. However, that doesn't change the meaning of the word 'cowardice' to suit your purpose. The definition you chose, "Want of courage to face danger", means that a person with cowardice lacks the necessary courage to face a dangerous situation. They hijacked the planes and killed themselves and many others. That is a dangerous situation for all involved. By the simple fact that they carried through with their actions they demonstrated that they did not lack the courage to do it.
Your response states that they "chose to attack a harmless target". You are incorrectly implying that because they could have done something more honorable, they are cowards for the actions that took place. Lack of performing a brave action does not necessarily make one a coward. Try and think of a day that you didn't go out of your way to do something particularly brave (there must be one sometime). Your use of the word 'cowardice' would imply that you were a coward that day. That is certainly not correct.
Carrying out military attacks on unarmed and unwarned civilian populations is the very definition of cowardice
Look up 'cowardice' in the dictionary. The one I looked in defines it as:
1. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
2. Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit.
3. The trait of lacking courage.
I don't see how you can believe that the 9/11 terrorrists showed 'extreme timidity', or 'fear of danger or hurt', or especially 'lack of spirit.'
Their acts were terrible, wrong, evil, sinful, etc. But they did not demonstrate cowardice. I will not mutilate the meaning of a word just to lob an insult no matter how nasty I think the recipient is.
Sorry I missed most of the discussion, but I had to get in my 2 cents.
A TV can pickup at most 2-3 signals in a metropolitan area.
I live in St. Louis and I pick up 9 stations (5 VHF and 4 UHF) plus I think a couple of shopping channels that I don't have programmed in. All except one of the UHF are very clear. I can't stand the idea of paying cable/satellite for mostly commercials.
The list definitely included some good topics, but the mystery that I found most interesting in 2002 is the 'mystery force' that caused course deflections in the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft. Here there is hard evidence that something is acting differently or in addition to what we expect (i.e. gravity, additional planet, etc.), but NASA is unable to explain it.
See this story from last May.
Slowly but surely commercial length is increasing while show time is decreasing. 1/3 of a 30 minute segment is commercials.
A few months ago ABC had a James Bond movie on a Saturday night. It seemed to me that there were more ads than usual, so I started paying attentionn to the times: 7 - 8 minutes of ads for every 8 minutes of movie! The same thing happened the next week during another Bond flick. I long ago cancelled my cable because of the 70 channels of ads, and now I find myself watching less and less (over the air) TV.
There's a whole world of things to do other than stare at ads for hours a night, letting the corporations pound away at your brain.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting to see the position that Sun is taking. Sun backs OSDL and so is paying a portion of the legal fees to fight SCO. Yet Sun also invested in SCO by purchasing the right to buy a 15% stake in SCO. I guess they're hedging their bets, but I find it amusing that in a roundabout way they are paying for both sides of the legal battle.
The only competitor to Intuits Quickbooks (on Windows) is Microsoft Money
It has been a few years since I've used Quickbooks, but I don't think that Microsoft Money is, or even intended to be, a competitor for it. Quickbooks is accounting software intended for small businesses. It does a/r, a/p, invoices, estimates, etc. Its competitors include Great Plains software (purchased by Microsoft a few years ago), and a few others I can't think of right now.
Perhaps you are thinking of Quicken?
You can always sue, whether you have a leg to stand on or not. But this may not be a good tactic. If you spend $699 now, and later SCO is determined to be wrong, then SCO probably will declare bankruptcy and nobody will be seeing a $699 (or any other amount) refund.
1 CPU $699...Additional single CPU $749
This cost structure doesn't make much sense. A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't additional 'licenses' be sold at a discount to the first?
Refer to the article, Grad Student's Work Reveals National Infrastructure (here)
This guy used public information to build a very thourough mapping of communication, transportation, power, etc. infrastructure. IIRC, it included cell phone towers.
Of course, this caught the attention of politicians and various agencies, and he can't share his research.
Again you failed to make the distinction. The partial quotes that you supplied (which are slightly misleading without their proper context, but I'll go with them), refer to the mindset of the terrorists. I made that very clear in my previous responses. So what I'm saying is that if someone thinks their act/plan is dangerous and they carry through with it without running from it, then they are acting courageously.
You made the leap to include the outcome of the act itself. Anybody can make their personal judgment about the nobility, honorability, worthiness, righteousness, sanity, etc. of the act itself. Since we're talking suicide bombers here, let's assume that the act includes 1) a suicide and 2) murders of other people (not necessarily in that order). As a person with an ethics system derived from the common ethics of western civilization, I find suicide bombing to be despicable. That's my personal judgment. However, the act (suicide/murder) viewed as an outsider, is not synchronous with the intent of the actor (the terrorist). Making the leap to connect "The terrorists... act bravely" to "...it is valiant to murder" is not valid. Do you see what I'm saying? It's a fine line distinguishing the intent and the outcome, but to say that someone is a coward questions their intent (their ability to face the danger), not the quality of the outcome of their action.
Please show me where you think I said that it is valiant to murder. You are placing words in my argument that were not there. And I'm not saying that the literal word 'valiant' wasn't in my argument; instead I'm saying that there is nothing in my argument to indicate that I think murder is valiant. I don't. I think it's terrible, whether committed by a suicide bomber, a terrorist on an airplane, an everyday criminal, or a state-sanctioned body.
What you clearly can't see is the difference between your judgment of the terrorists' motives and how the terrorists (most likely) were acting according to their own beliefs. You sitting there and insulting them (or me) will not, and can not, change their acts to cowardice. If they see the danger they are putting themselves into, and they carry through with their actions, then they are not cowards.
Since you are obviously trying to be sensationalistic instead of rational, you should really modify your scenario to include a few elderly nuns, a nobel prize winner, and the cast of the local 4H club production of West Side Story.
'Coward' means, according to the dictionary, "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." 'Brave' means, according to the same dictionary, "1. (adj) Possessing or displaying courage, valiant. 2. (v) To undergo or face courageously."
Terrorists in general (including suicide bombers, since you're focusing on them), most likely realize the danger of the situation that they are putting themselves into. They (generally) carry through with the situation. Therefore, they do not show ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. To say that they are cowards is directly contradictory to the meaning of the word 'coward'. Further, since the terrorists do (generally speaking) carry through with their actions without running from their purpose as a coward would do, they undergo those actions courageously. Therefore, according to the definition of the word, they act bravely.
All outside judgments of ethics and honorability of their actions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they act courageously or bravely.
Please stop deliberately misusing words in an attempt to further your agenda.
Murdering a defenseless, weaponless 5-year old girl is not brave or heroic. However, performing a non-brave action in preference to the brave alternative does not make one a coward. Running from a dangerous situation, when faced with one, makes one a coward. This is not a world where if you are not classified at an extreme (e.g. brave), you are automatically classified as the opposite (e.g. coward). Following that logic, you could say that if you are not hot, you are cold.
The braveness of an action is determined exclusively by the person performing the action. If one thinks something is not brave, but another person is performing the action and that other person considers it a courageous, brave action, then that is what it is. An outside judgment of the ethics / honorability / braveness, etc. has no bearing on whether or not the person performing the action did so with courage. This is my guess (which I obviously can't corroborate): The terrorists probably recognize the supreme danger of their situation. They approach the situation and carry out their plans. If they in fact recognize the danger beforehand, that means that they act bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly). So, as an outsider making a judgment on their actions, I can say that they act, in my opinion, despicably, but I have no right to say they act cowardly.
I wish I had seen this comment earlier. I've already moderated in this topic, but I'll give up those points to comment on this.
Look up 'coward' in the dictionary. The one I looked in defines it as: "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain."
Further, 'cowardice' is defined as: 1.Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. 2. Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit. 3. The trait of lacking courage.
And 'cowardly' is: Exhibiting the characterstics of a coward, particularly ignoble fear.
Sneaking in some where and killing non-combatants is pretty much solidly within my definition of cowardly.
Cowardice has nothing to do with killing non-combatants vs. killing combatants vs. not killing anybody.
Willingness to die does not equate with courage.
That's right. Being willing to die is not the same as being courageous. But dying, whether through suicide, war or other causes, also does not equate with cowardice.
If these people weren't cowards, they would pick up a rifle and fight soldiers, not children.
The target of their animosity is irrelevant to whether or not they are cowards. I don't think you'll deny that the terrorists generally put themselves in dangerous situations when committing their acts of terror. If they do not show ignoble fear in the face of that danger (i.e. if they carry out their intended actions), they are not cowards.
I find log base 2 particularly offensive.
From the article, "SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX..." Whether Linux was made from scratch or not, SCO is claiming that it was an unauthorized derivative. I don't know how the legal definition of derivative will play into this, but clearly SCO thinks that they have some control over who makes Unix-like operating systems.
One specific embarrassment to remove is given on page 8 of the linked pdf:
vector<list<int>>
Compilers choke on that, assuming that the >> at the end is the operator >>, not closing the template declaration. To make it work correctly you have to say > > (with a space in between). That makes it look odd:
vector<list<int> >
1. Performing a non-brave action in preference to the brave alternative does not make one a coward. Running from a dangerous situation, when faced with one, makes one a coward. This is not a world where if you are not classified at an extreme (e.g. brave), you are automatically classified as the opposite (e.g. coward). Following that logic, you could say that if you are not hot, you are cold.
2. The braveness of an action is determined exclusively by the person performing the action. If one thinks something is not brave, but another person is performing the action and that other person considers it a courageous, brave action, then that is what it is. An outside judgment of the ethics / honorability / braveness, etc. has no bearing on whether or not the person performing the action did so with courage. This is my guess (which I obviously can't corroborate): The terrorists probably recognized the supreme danger of their situation. They approached it and carried out their plan. If they in fact recognized the danger beforehand, that means that they acted bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly). So, as an outsider making a judgment on their actions, I can say that they were despicable, but I have no right to say they acted cowardly.
Of course they could have attacked a dangerous foe. However, that doesn't change the meaning of the word 'cowardice' to suit your purpose. The definition you chose, "Want of courage to face danger", means that a person with cowardice lacks the necessary courage to face a dangerous situation. They hijacked the planes and killed themselves and many others. That is a dangerous situation for all involved. By the simple fact that they carried through with their actions they demonstrated that they did not lack the courage to do it.
Your response states that they "chose to attack a harmless target". You are incorrectly implying that because they could have done something more honorable, they are cowards for the actions that took place. Lack of performing a brave action does not necessarily make one a coward. Try and think of a day that you didn't go out of your way to do something particularly brave (there must be one sometime). Your use of the word 'cowardice' would imply that you were a coward that day. That is certainly not correct.
Carrying out military attacks on unarmed and unwarned civilian populations is the very definition of cowardice
Look up 'cowardice' in the dictionary. The one I looked in defines it as:
1. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. 2. Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit. 3. The trait of lacking courage.
I don't see how you can believe that the 9/11 terrorrists showed 'extreme timidity', or 'fear of danger or hurt', or especially 'lack of spirit.'
Their acts were terrible, wrong, evil, sinful, etc. But they did not demonstrate cowardice. I will not mutilate the meaning of a word just to lob an insult no matter how nasty I think the recipient is.
Sorry I missed most of the discussion, but I had to get in my 2 cents.
A TV can pickup at most 2-3 signals in a metropolitan area.
I live in St. Louis and I pick up 9 stations (5 VHF and 4 UHF) plus I think a couple of shopping channels that I don't have programmed in. All except one of the UHF are very clear. I can't stand the idea of paying cable/satellite for mostly commercials.
The list definitely included some good topics, but the mystery that I found most interesting in 2002 is the 'mystery force' that caused course deflections in the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft. Here there is hard evidence that something is acting differently or in addition to what we expect (i.e. gravity, additional planet, etc.), but NASA is unable to explain it.
See this story from last May.
Slowly but surely commercial length is increasing while show time is decreasing. 1/3 of a 30 minute segment is commercials.
A few months ago ABC had a James Bond movie on a Saturday night. It seemed to me that there were more ads than usual, so I started paying attentionn to the times: 7 - 8 minutes of ads for every 8 minutes of movie! The same thing happened the next week during another Bond flick. I long ago cancelled my cable because of the 70 channels of ads, and now I find myself watching less and less (over the air) TV.
There's a whole world of things to do other than stare at ads for hours a night, letting the corporations pound away at your brain.