I just have to weigh in. This is the most incredibly depressing, immature stunt I have ever seen in my life. This man doesn't care about anyone in the world, he just wants his fifteen minutes and he isn't afraid to stomp all over everyone else to get it. Honestly, I hope someone seeks some non-violent revenge out on him. If only I weren't an atheist--I'd love to sleep better at night knowing this guy had to look forward to an eternity in hell. What is he, a middle-schooler? He reminds me of the people who ride by in cars screaming "fag!" at pedestrians. He's a coward and an idiot. He should be tarred and feathered and never work again. I hope companies google his name before hiring him in the future. What a sad, pathetic little idiot.
Did you watch this week's South Park? Looks like you have an overabundance of smug.
The more we act like certain words are taboo, like calling things "gay," the more power we give them. Personally, I don't call things that I think are "lame" or "uncool" gay, but I don't know any sensible, level-headed gay men or lesbians who are offended when others do, so long as the intent, the meaning behind those words isn't meant to put-down gays.
Black people started using the word "nigga" or even "nigger" and the word lost a lot of its power. Just like lesbians started referring to themselves as "dykes" and gays in general often refer to themselves as "queers." Using the word gay when referring to something lame isn't automatically a slam against the homosexual population. Freaking out and screaming "you can't say that!" just gives the word, even when used in slang form to mean something totally unrelated to sexual orientation, a weird, mystical, insulting power. So chill out. Quit being gay!
it is a but discouraging to have individuals keep asserting "constitutional" rights which are completely illusory.
It seems to me the Constitution was originally designed to place restraints on the federal Government; not as a document to grant rights to individuals. I'd take the more Libertarian perspective: there is nothing in the Constitution granting the Government the power to order individuals to present their papers while traveling anywhere by any method.
But that's not the world we live in today. And I think that's extremely unfortunate.
Dude, your people control all three branches of government in the U.S. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to stop complaining about being oppressed by "arrogant, progressive . . . nerd[s]". You're not being hassled by the Man, you are the Man, now.
That's an odd assumption to be making. Are you of the opinion that there are only two schools of thought in the entire world?
I don't support the people in power. "My people" are not in power. I'm an anti-war Libertarian, and the only person who holds similar views to mine that I am aware of in our entire federal Government is Ron Paul, former LP Presidential candidate.
So am I still the man?
But thanks for once again demonstrating how arrogant progressives enjoy making baseless assumptions about anyone's political views who may not agree with their own.
I'm not much interested in the specifics of who is in control at any given time anyway; giving the Government power to control the delivery of information is a recipe for disaster even if I personally liked and agreed with those in power.
As long as I consider the Library a government responsibility, I have to say the same about internet access.
There is no fundamental difference to me, and universal access to information is the kind of thing I would be proud to pay taxes for.
I'm so happy you feel that way. Unfortunately, I don't. Taxes are mandatory, and they are only necessary to fund programs that people wouldn't be willing to pay for voluntarily. When you support a tax program to implement 'free' wifi, you are advocating using the Government to steal from others in order to implement a program that you personally support. All of this in a city which has far more pressing concerns than setting up a giant wifi network.
Once Governments start controlling internet access, whether through free wifi or any other method, they will start regulating content. There is no maybe about it, they will. Look at our "public airwaves." Look at what the FCC is doing to Howard Stern every time he says the word boob.
I have no interest in taxpayer funded wifi. Neither do the vast majority of people running around New Orleans, simply trying to survive. It's something only the most arrogant, progressive sort of nerd could advocate.
Replace "city" with "unwilling taxpayers who were robbed at gunpoint by a few lobbyist nerds..." and you're right on.
Nothing's free, someone pays for it. Start a business, offer a service, do it that way.
Yeah, I want "free" wifi too. But I'm not going to use the Government to rob people in order to pay for my "free" wifi...
Lower price, better service, no Government monopoly... why is everyone clamoring for the Government to start running an ISP? You don't think that'll lead to censorship???
For me, if you want to hold a professional job, you need to look professional.
For me, if you want to have any decent chance of being successful running a professional business, you need to learn how not to judge a book by it's cover.
Guys...unless you are gay, leave the ear rings at home.
So when you're conducting an interview with a man who is wearing earrings, do you ask if they're gay? Just curious, but I'm pretty sure you'd have a lawsuit on your hands.
Christ. Who cares if someone has pink hair? Unless you're working at a fabric store or some other weird place that caters to old Church ladies, it doesn't have an impact on your job performance.
How about judging someone based on their compotence and ability to get the job done? This is just another form of bigotry, rather than evaluating someone based on their skills you're taking a lazy shortcut and judging them based on how they choose to alter their meaningless physical appearance.
The guys with dyed hair and piercings aren't the ones who need to grow up. It's the douche bags who judge them based on such silly, insignificant, external factors.
While we're on the subject, how about we fix the following?:
1) There are way too many different attractive females walking around. They should all look the same to avoid confusion.
2) I HATE going to a restaurant and having to spend all that time browsing through the menus. They should just give me meatloat and tell me to shutup.
3) Ferrari or Kia? Nah, just make them all Kia's. They both do the same exact damn thing after all!
4) All of these companies, LIKE MICROSOFT, are producing competing products. That seems so silly! Communism has it right! Everything should be owned and produced by a single entity! The choice is so confusing, and obviously competition leads to inferior products!
Okay, I'm kidding. No offense, but your comment has been posted so many times in varying forms in so many different forums that I really should be yawning right now rather than replying. But ah, I'm bored, and I'm on a roll when it comes to getting my posts modded as flamebait!:)
Distrowatch.com proves that yes, there are too many distros to keep track of. If 'keeping track' of distros is your thing. This variety does not make a single distro less usable; rather all the distros tend to benefit from the competition and *open-source* innovations created by the others.
KDE/Gnome wouldn't be improving at nearly the same pace if one or the other was the only game in town. While we're on it, kick-ass Window Managers like XFCE and WindowMaker wouldn't even exist if everyone settled on the one, true, final, and perfect solution. Only religions imply one perfect answer for everything. Choice is good, competition is even cooler.
"their pants are around their ankles for the next few years until Longhorn comes out anyway..."
Yep, all of use Linux users are trembling at the thought of Microsoft releasing the much delayed, super hyped, unable to include their cool new filesystem Longhorn.
Maybe most of us don't even care if Microsoft is destroyed. We're too busy using / developing stuff that is way cooler.
The whole "gentoo sucks, (insert distro name here) rules!" thing is silly, and clearly illustrates you have no knowledge whatsoever of the Linux community other than some interaction with thirteen year olds. There's more cooperative development in Linux distros than petty name calling a zillion times over.
Rights are something you are born with. They aren't something that can be taken away. They aren't granted by the bill of rights or anything else. Therefore, you don't have to be a citizen to have rights, even if your Government pretends you don't have them.
If only citizens had the rights outlined in the bill of rights, that would imply that the first ten ammendments AWARDED us those rights. That would make them privileges, not rights, granted to us by the Government. Privileges can be revoked at any time.
This may be somewhat off-topic, although this discussion is dealing with what have become virtually mandated Identification cards, and that could easily flow into a discussion of individual rights. I just hate to see the poster above modded down like that.
So you're suggesting we outlaw all private universities?
Exactly how did capitalism encourage this sort of behavior? Do you even know what capitalism is?
In a "Godless socialised education" system, there's no incentive to succeed whatsoever. When public schools do bad, they just get more money, and their "customers" have no choice. They are forced to go to them. Monopolies are bad, especially when the Government has them.
Anti-capitalists like the poster above are so quick to scream fire every time something fails that isn't run by the Government.
Here's how it is in the real world: This school scammed people, and now they'll pay the price. Their behavior is NOT being rewarded, either in profits or the whole staying out of prison thing. If capitalism means being greedy and earning money, then the people running this school are bad capitalists. I'm pretty sure they won't be making much money as a direct result of their actions.
The same thing happened to Enron. They did dumb stuff, now they're out of business. The market fixed the behavior. That's what happened here. Simply because A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL school has acted unethically and illegally random zealouts like you are going to start screaming for more Government intervention.
I would still take a mediocre private education over the best our Government can offer, thanks.
Capitalism isn't utopia, but socialism is so much farther from utopia it isn't funny. Taking random and fairly isolated incidents like this and citing them as an example of the failures of capitalism is borderline retarded. Especially seeing as how the U.S. is regulating more and more of our daily lives every day. We're hardly capitalist over here anymore. State capitalism would be a better phrase.
Because everyone knows men are smarter than women.
Now get in the kitchen cook my dinner!
Or get a life. Either one works.
The article didn't say "all grandmothers are stupid and can't work technology LOL!".
I somehow doubt this article set back women's rights in any way, but you are illustrating why so many people hate feminists. You remind me of a magnet on my refrigerator:
"This is a feminist bookstore, THERE IS NO HUMOR SECTION!"
Second off, before everyone starts ripping on evil corporations and patents... let's not forget that the evil Government creates the environment that breeds bacterial scum like SCO.
In other words, engage in some activism. Help out the EFF, fight software patents in Europe, do whatever it takes to stop this problem at the source: Evil Government...
If you know anything about the Libertarian party platform, I think you would understand this move. Government money (OUR money) is being used to fund a political debate that is purposefully excluding candidates that will be on the ballot. If Libertarians just sit back and accept that, they aren't encouraging the Government to be hands off, are they?
It's very Libertarian to step in and try and stop the Government from robbing (sorry, 'collecting taxes from') taxpayers to selectively fund the infomercials of the two major candidates while ignoring legitimate candidates that aren't as popular.
This can't possibly be even remotely legal, at least not until we have an official United States Department of Propaganda. Should be coming around 2006.
Just want to thank you guys for putting out a linux version, and I think the screenshots look really impressive personally. Definitely worth downloading the demo (at least), which I'm already doing:)
Curious to hear about anyone's experience working with Garage Games as their publisher... any success stories? Horrible failures? It's a great concept, plus they're located about 30 miles away from me. So I'd like to hope they become something really big eventually...
Installing something on someone's computer without their consent is wrong and there are no exceptions to that rule.
My computer is my property. You have no right to modify or tamper with my property in any way, even if you think it's for a good cause. Just like you have no right to bust in the windows on my house and install properly working smoke detectors.
Not only that, I've seen a few posters point out the obvious bandwidth suckage issues associated with "good" worms.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ha ha ha!
Sorry, I have a serious point here, in any political sys.. ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! HA HA HA HA!!!! sorry, I'm tearing up here, let me make my poi... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! whoooo!!! ha ha ha ha!!! seriously, get me a paper bag here!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.
Common misconception amongst everyone in the open source movement, or just anti-MS zealots in general. If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible. That is focusing on the product. While it may not be technically superior or as stable as other OS's (Linux, Mac OS X, name it), it still does what most people want while the other operating systems don't. That is why those OS's don't have the market share. While I think Linux's technical superiority will allow it to catch up, to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.
What exactly are you talking about? Are they supposed to buy everyone a teddy bear?
Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.
Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.
A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup.
Couldn't agree more.
Only on/. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it. As long as Bill Gates isn't using all of his money to buy all the slashdot virgins blowjobs from Carmen Electra, they can't do anything right.
I like her ethics better than yours. You think people who are in charge of making a profit from shareholders should waste money by employing people because they have a "right" to a job, whether or not they've earned it?
In other words, she should NEVER turn a person away for a job, whether qualified or not, because it's their "right" to have that job? Some zit-faced dude from McDonalds has a "right" to whatever job he wants, so he can sit around and smoke weed instead of working on thermal inkjet printer technology?
At who's expense is this right granted anyway? Somebody has to pay someone. If jobs are a right, unqualified people deserve them to, at the expense of the people who sign their paychecks.
Why don't you start a company with your philosophy, and see how far it takes you... if everyone followed your line of thinking, their would be no businesses, and thus no jobs. So it obviously isn't a "right".
Communist idiot. Marked as insightful??? Maybe this is why all of our tech jobs are moving overseas. People in the tech industry see their job as a right, not something to be earned.
I find it so interesting that so many/.'ers complain about outsourcing and the loss of American tech jobs (whether a legitimate complaint or not), yet...
Everyone seems so willing to make the argument other countries should not rely so much on foreign (American) software.
Wouldn't that mean the loss of more American tech jobs? Aren't those lines of thinking in conflict?
Or is it okay to lose tech jobs, as long as those jobs are Microsoft's, and somehow that won't affect other tech jobs.???
The U.S. still imports way more jobs than it imports, and India's tech is booming based solely on the fact that it is low cost. Try reading some alternative viewpoints on the outsourcing subject.
Japan has all the cutting edge electronics and techonologies
And those Japanese companies also create a lot of jobs in the U.S., and the Japanese economy isn't doing so hot. Your point?
China is destined to be the next super power With no economic freedom and the vast majority of it's citizens living in horrid poverty, I doubt it.
Korea is trying to get nukes
NORTH Korea already has them.
The USA has mad cow disease, a puppet for a president, a huge debt, a slow economy and we're spending billions more on rebuilding a country that we destroyed while looking for weapons that didn't exist.
Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about? It was slow a year ago, times are changing... mad cow disease gets a big "so what" from me, it's more paranoia than reality, it does more damage to the beef industry than the general population. And a puppet for a President? Watch this "puppet" obliterate John Kerry in the next election.
It's really lame his editorializing was so lacking in any substance, and yet modded up as insightful.
What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body?
And what if it takes 40 years? Or 60 years? Scientific studies by the FDA have proven these fish are no more dangerous than the unmodified fish. There is no reason to believe they are dangerous. Repeat: NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?
The science we're relying on is not just funded by those people who are profiting off of this. See the FDA study, or search google, lots of stuff comes up.
Meanwhile, no study, funded by anyone, has concluded that these fish can even be potentially dangerous.
Here's an example of one of the "reasons" these special-interest groups want to prevent these inventors from profiting off their product, from Time Magazine, who named it one of the coolest inventions of 2003:
Opponents of genetic engineering fear that these creatures could crossbreed with wild species, creating glowing schools of Frankenfish. To keep them from spreading their shining DNA, the distributor, Taikong International, sterilizes them all.
First off, is there any reason why crossbreeding is a dangerous thing? None is provided, and this isn't my area of expertise. So I guess I'm asking for the experts opinion on this. Second of all, they're all sterilized, so that seems to negate the only "concern" I've heard from anyone. Again, no studies show these fish are dangerous to anyone in any way.
So let's please stop suing everyone who innovates. Or go work for SCO. They love your type.
There's nothing "blind" about my "worship" of the rich. I admire what a lot of rich people have done with their lives and the good it has done for all of us. I spelled out my reasons very clearly. That isn't blind. I hope to be one of them in the (near) future.
What strikes me as rather "blind" is your hatred of the rich, so much to the point where you seem to think this lawsuit is a good idea, but you can't tell me why.
You think they have no right to profit off something they have invested time and money in, because it might be dangerous, but you can't tell us why it is dangerous, and you are contradicted by several studies including one by the FDA.
I'm having fun with you here, but I'm going to have to stop replying until you point me to a single study that justifies suing the people who invented this product.
Government regulation is a serious thing, that costs businesses a lot of money and leads them to invest less money in R&D and EMPLOYING PEOPLE.
I pointed out how you were wrong with your original statement (The only people who have determined this product is safe are the ones selling it) by pointing out other people who were saying it. You admitted you were too lazy to do a google search to do me wrong, or you lied, did one, found nothing, and claimed laziness instead of admitting you were wrong or being quiet.
You blindly hate rich people, innovation, inventors, etc. You've shown that through your posts. So please, don't call me blind. I gave my reasons for everything, if you are illiterate there is nothing I can do to help you....
Until then, I'd love to hear some evidence from you justifying the lawsuit you support against a very innovative company. Or at least some teeny-tiny reasons for why you believe what you "believe".
Until then, you sound silly. But hey, maybe SCO is hiring!
Slashdot Mirror
I just have to weigh in. This is the most incredibly depressing, immature stunt I have ever seen in my life. This man doesn't care about anyone in the world, he just wants his fifteen minutes and he isn't afraid to stomp all over everyone else to get it. Honestly, I hope someone seeks some non-violent revenge out on him. If only I weren't an atheist--I'd love to sleep better at night knowing this guy had to look forward to an eternity in hell. What is he, a middle-schooler? He reminds me of the people who ride by in cars screaming "fag!" at pedestrians. He's a coward and an idiot. He should be tarred and feathered and never work again. I hope companies google his name before hiring him in the future. What a sad, pathetic little idiot.
Did you watch this week's South Park? Looks like you have an overabundance of smug.
The more we act like certain words are taboo, like calling things "gay," the more power we give them. Personally, I don't call things that I think are "lame" or "uncool" gay, but I don't know any sensible, level-headed gay men or lesbians who are offended when others do, so long as the intent, the meaning behind those words isn't meant to put-down gays. Black people started using the word "nigga" or even "nigger" and the word lost a lot of its power. Just like lesbians started referring to themselves as "dykes" and gays in general often refer to themselves as "queers." Using the word gay when referring to something lame isn't automatically a slam against the homosexual population. Freaking out and screaming "you can't say that!" just gives the word, even when used in slang form to mean something totally unrelated to sexual orientation, a weird, mystical, insulting power. So chill out. Quit being gay!
It seems to me the Constitution was originally designed to place restraints on the federal Government; not as a document to grant rights to individuals. I'd take the more Libertarian perspective: there is nothing in the Constitution granting the Government the power to order individuals to present their papers while traveling anywhere by any method.
But that's not the world we live in today. And I think that's extremely unfortunate.That's an odd assumption to be making. Are you of the opinion that there are only two schools of thought in the entire world?
I don't support the people in power. "My people" are not in power. I'm an anti-war Libertarian, and the only person who holds similar views to mine that I am aware of in our entire federal Government is Ron Paul, former LP Presidential candidate.
So am I still the man?
But thanks for once again demonstrating how arrogant progressives enjoy making baseless assumptions about anyone's political views who may not agree with their own.
I'm not much interested in the specifics of who is in control at any given time anyway; giving the Government power to control the delivery of information is a recipe for disaster even if I personally liked and agreed with those in power.
I'm so happy you feel that way. Unfortunately, I don't. Taxes are mandatory, and they are only necessary to fund programs that people wouldn't be willing to pay for voluntarily. When you support a tax program to implement 'free' wifi, you are advocating using the Government to steal from others in order to implement a program that you personally support. All of this in a city which has far more pressing concerns than setting up a giant wifi network.
Once Governments start controlling internet access, whether through free wifi or any other method, they will start regulating content. There is no maybe about it, they will. Look at our "public airwaves." Look at what the FCC is doing to Howard Stern every time he says the word boob.
I have no interest in taxpayer funded wifi. Neither do the vast majority of people running around New Orleans, simply trying to survive. It's something only the most arrogant, progressive sort of nerd could advocate.
Free wifi huh?
it was costing the city too much money
Replace "city" with "unwilling taxpayers who were robbed at gunpoint by a few lobbyist nerds..." and you're right on.
Nothing's free, someone pays for it. Start a business, offer a service, do it that way.
Yeah, I want "free" wifi too. But I'm not going to use the Government to rob people in order to pay for my "free" wifi...
Lower price, better service, no Government monopoly... why is everyone clamoring for the Government to start running an ISP? You don't think that'll lead to censorship???
For me, if you want to hold a professional job, you need to look professional.
For me, if you want to have any decent chance of being successful running a professional business, you need to learn how not to judge a book by it's cover.
Guys...unless you are gay, leave the ear rings at home.
So when you're conducting an interview with a man who is wearing earrings, do you ask if they're gay? Just curious, but I'm pretty sure you'd have a lawsuit on your hands.
Christ. Who cares if someone has pink hair? Unless you're working at a fabric store or some other weird place that caters to old Church ladies, it doesn't have an impact on your job performance.
How about judging someone based on their compotence and ability to get the job done? This is just another form of bigotry, rather than evaluating someone based on their skills you're taking a lazy shortcut and judging them based on how they choose to alter their meaningless physical appearance.
The guys with dyed hair and piercings aren't the ones who need to grow up. It's the douche bags who judge them based on such silly, insignificant, external factors.
I agree 100000%.
:)
While we're on the subject, how about we fix the following?:
1) There are way too many different attractive females walking around. They should all look the same to avoid confusion.
2) I HATE going to a restaurant and having to spend all that time browsing through the menus. They should just give me meatloat and tell me to shutup.
3) Ferrari or Kia? Nah, just make them all Kia's. They both do the same exact damn thing after all!
4) All of these companies, LIKE MICROSOFT, are producing competing products. That seems so silly! Communism has it right! Everything should be owned and produced by a single entity! The choice is so confusing, and obviously competition leads to inferior products!
Okay, I'm kidding. No offense, but your comment has been posted so many times in varying forms in so many different forums that I really should be yawning right now rather than replying. But ah, I'm bored, and I'm on a roll when it comes to getting my posts modded as flamebait!
Distrowatch.com proves that yes, there are too many distros to keep track of. If 'keeping track' of distros is your thing. This variety does not make a single distro less usable; rather all the distros tend to benefit from the competition and *open-source* innovations created by the others.
KDE/Gnome wouldn't be improving at nearly the same pace if one or the other was the only game in town. While we're on it, kick-ass Window Managers like XFCE and WindowMaker wouldn't even exist if everyone settled on the one, true, final, and perfect solution. Only religions imply one perfect answer for everything. Choice is good, competition is even cooler.
"their pants are around their ankles for the next few years until Longhorn comes out anyway..."
Yep, all of use Linux users are trembling at the thought of Microsoft releasing the much delayed, super hyped, unable to include their cool new filesystem Longhorn.
Maybe most of us don't even care if Microsoft is destroyed. We're too busy using / developing stuff that is way cooler.
The whole "gentoo sucks, (insert distro name here) rules!" thing is silly, and clearly illustrates you have no knowledge whatsoever of the Linux community other than some interaction with thirteen year olds. There's more cooperative development in Linux distros than petty name calling a zillion times over.
The "Troll" above makes a good point.
Rights are something you are born with. They aren't something that can be taken away. They aren't granted by the bill of rights or anything else. Therefore, you don't have to be a citizen to have rights, even if your Government pretends you don't have them.
If only citizens had the rights outlined in the bill of rights, that would imply that the first ten ammendments AWARDED us those rights. That would make them privileges, not rights, granted to us by the Government. Privileges can be revoked at any time.
This may be somewhat off-topic, although this discussion is dealing with what have become virtually mandated Identification cards, and that could easily flow into a discussion of individual rights. I just hate to see the poster above modded down like that.
So you're suggesting we outlaw all private universities?
Exactly how did capitalism encourage this sort of behavior? Do you even know what capitalism is?
In a "Godless socialised education" system, there's no incentive to succeed whatsoever. When public schools do bad, they just get more money, and their "customers" have no choice. They are forced to go to them. Monopolies are bad, especially when the Government has them.
Anti-capitalists like the poster above are so quick to scream fire every time something fails that isn't run by the Government.
Here's how it is in the real world: This school scammed people, and now they'll pay the price. Their behavior is NOT being rewarded, either in profits or the whole staying out of prison thing. If capitalism means being greedy and earning money, then the people running this school are bad capitalists. I'm pretty sure they won't be making much money as a direct result of their actions.
The same thing happened to Enron. They did dumb stuff, now they're out of business. The market fixed the behavior. That's what happened here. Simply because A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL school has acted unethically and illegally random zealouts like you are going to start screaming for more Government intervention.
I would still take a mediocre private education over the best our Government can offer, thanks.
Capitalism isn't utopia, but socialism is so much farther from utopia it isn't funny. Taking random and fairly isolated incidents like this and citing them as an example of the failures of capitalism is borderline retarded. Especially seeing as how the U.S. is regulating more and more of our daily lives every day. We're hardly capitalist over here anymore. State capitalism would be a better phrase.
Because everyone knows men are smarter than women. Now get in the kitchen cook my dinner! Or get a life. Either one works. The article didn't say "all grandmothers are stupid and can't work technology LOL!". I somehow doubt this article set back women's rights in any way, but you are illustrating why so many people hate feminists. You remind me of a magnet on my refrigerator: "This is a feminist bookstore, THERE IS NO HUMOR SECTION!"
Second off, before everyone starts ripping on evil corporations and patents... let's not forget that the evil Government creates the environment that breeds bacterial scum like SCO.
In other words, engage in some activism. Help out the EFF, fight software patents in Europe, do whatever it takes to stop this problem at the source: Evil Government...
Wow. I mean WOW. You really don't get it.
If you know anything about the Libertarian party platform, I think you would understand this move. Government money (OUR money) is being used to fund a political debate that is purposefully excluding candidates that will be on the ballot. If Libertarians just sit back and accept that, they aren't encouraging the Government to be hands off, are they?
It's very Libertarian to step in and try and stop the Government from robbing (sorry, 'collecting taxes from') taxpayers to selectively fund the infomercials of the two major candidates while ignoring legitimate candidates that aren't as popular.
This can't possibly be even remotely legal, at least not until we have an official United States Department of Propaganda. Should be coming around 2006.
Just want to thank you guys for putting out a linux version, and I think the screenshots look really impressive personally. Definitely worth downloading the demo (at least), which I'm already doing :)
Curious to hear about anyone's experience working with Garage Games as their publisher... any success stories? Horrible failures? It's a great concept, plus they're located about 30 miles away from me. So I'd like to hope they become something really big eventually...
Installing something on someone's computer without their consent is wrong and there are no exceptions to that rule.
My computer is my property. You have no right to modify or tamper with my property in any way, even if you think it's for a good cause. Just like you have no right to bust in the windows on my house and install properly working smoke detectors.
Not only that, I've seen a few posters point out the obvious bandwidth suckage issues associated with "good" worms.
Worst front page slashdot post ever.
s chlussel_014.htm
News for nerds?
Oh well.
Whatever your opinion of the Iraq war, Moore isn't the most reliable source of information:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/
If anyone cares to read some REAL research and analysis from an anti-war perspective, why not try the Cato Institute? http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html
Taking Michael Moore seriously is like getting all your news from Kurt Loder and that "Sway" guy on MTV.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ha ha ha! Sorry, I have a serious point here, in any political sys.. ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! HA HA HA HA!!!! sorry, I'm tearing up here, let me make my poi... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! whoooo!!! ha ha ha ha!!! seriously, get me a paper bag here!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
done trolling.
I can't let this post slide, insightful???
/. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it. As long as Bill Gates isn't using all of his money to buy all the slashdot virgins blowjobs from Carmen Electra, they can't do anything right.
But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.
Common misconception amongst everyone in the open source movement, or just anti-MS zealots in general. If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible. That is focusing on the product. While it may not be technically superior or as stable as other OS's (Linux, Mac OS X, name it), it still does what most people want while the other operating systems don't. That is why those OS's don't have the market share. While I think Linux's technical superiority will allow it to catch up, to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.
What exactly are you talking about? Are they supposed to buy everyone a teddy bear?
Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.
Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.
A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup.
Couldn't agree more.
Only on
Early returns show Dennis Kucinich winning every state, with Al Sharpton a close second in all ten...
I like her ethics better than yours. You think people who are in charge of making a profit from shareholders should waste money by employing people because they have a "right" to a job, whether or not they've earned it?
In other words, she should NEVER turn a person away for a job, whether qualified or not, because it's their "right" to have that job? Some zit-faced dude from McDonalds has a "right" to whatever job he wants, so he can sit around and smoke weed instead of working on thermal inkjet printer technology?
At who's expense is this right granted anyway? Somebody has to pay someone. If jobs are a right, unqualified people deserve them to, at the expense of the people who sign their paychecks.
Why don't you start a company with your philosophy, and see how far it takes you... if everyone followed your line of thinking, their would be no businesses, and thus no jobs. So it obviously isn't a "right".
Communist idiot. Marked as insightful??? Maybe this is why all of our tech jobs are moving overseas. People in the tech industry see their job as a right, not something to be earned.
I find it so interesting that so many /.'ers complain about outsourcing and the loss of American tech jobs (whether a legitimate complaint or not), yet...
Everyone seems so willing to make the argument other countries should not rely so much on foreign (American) software.
Wouldn't that mean the loss of more American tech jobs? Aren't those lines of thinking in conflict?
Or is it okay to lose tech jobs, as long as those jobs are Microsoft's, and somehow that won't affect other tech jobs.???
India's tech is booming
The U.S. still imports way more jobs than it imports, and India's tech is booming based solely on the fact that it is low cost. Try reading some alternative viewpoints on the outsourcing subject.
Japan has all the cutting edge electronics and techonologies
And those Japanese companies also create a lot of jobs in the U.S., and the Japanese economy isn't doing so hot. Your point?
China is destined to be the next super power
With no economic freedom and the vast majority of it's citizens living in horrid poverty, I doubt it.
Korea is trying to get nukes
NORTH Korea already has them.
The USA has mad cow disease, a puppet for a president, a huge debt, a slow economy and we're spending billions more on rebuilding a country that we destroyed while looking for weapons that didn't exist.
Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about? It was slow a year ago, times are changing... mad cow disease gets a big "so what" from me, it's more paranoia than reality, it does more damage to the beef industry than the general population. And a puppet for a President? Watch this "puppet" obliterate John Kerry in the next election.
It's really lame his editorializing was so lacking in any substance, and yet modded up as insightful.
What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body?
And what if it takes 40 years? Or 60 years? Scientific studies by the FDA have proven these fish are no more dangerous than the unmodified fish. There is no reason to believe they are dangerous. Repeat: NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?
The science we're relying on is not just funded by those people who are profiting off of this. See the FDA study, or search google, lots of stuff comes up.
Meanwhile, no study, funded by anyone, has concluded that these fish can even be potentially dangerous.
Here's an example of one of the "reasons" these special-interest groups want to prevent these inventors from profiting off their product, from Time Magazine, who named it one of the coolest inventions of 2003:
Opponents of genetic engineering fear that these creatures could crossbreed with wild species, creating glowing schools of Frankenfish. To keep them from spreading their shining DNA, the distributor, Taikong International, sterilizes them all.
First off, is there any reason why crossbreeding is a dangerous thing? None is provided, and this isn't my area of expertise. So I guess I'm asking for the experts opinion on this. Second of all, they're all sterilized, so that seems to negate the only "concern" I've heard from anyone. Again, no studies show these fish are dangerous to anyone in any way.
So let's please stop suing everyone who innovates. Or go work for SCO. They love your type.
I gave a sound reason.
Which was???
I didn't see one!!! Maybe I'm dumb, please tell me again. Just post with the reason, nothing else. Just so I'm sure to get it this time.
And your sound reason for opposing these fish and supporting this lawsuit is....
heh, you're getting funny.
There's nothing "blind" about my "worship" of the rich. I admire what a lot of rich people have done with their lives and the good it has done for all of us. I spelled out my reasons very clearly. That isn't blind. I hope to be one of them in the (near) future.
What strikes me as rather "blind" is your hatred of the rich, so much to the point where you seem to think this lawsuit is a good idea, but you can't tell me why.
You think they have no right to profit off something they have invested time and money in, because it might be dangerous, but you can't tell us why it is dangerous, and you are contradicted by several studies including one by the FDA.
I'm having fun with you here, but I'm going to have to stop replying until you point me to a single study that justifies suing the people who invented this product.
Government regulation is a serious thing, that costs businesses a lot of money and leads them to invest less money in R&D and EMPLOYING PEOPLE.
I pointed out how you were wrong with your original statement (The only people who have determined this product is safe are the ones selling it) by pointing out other people who were saying it. You admitted you were too lazy to do a google search to do me wrong, or you lied, did one, found nothing, and claimed laziness instead of admitting you were wrong or being quiet.
You blindly hate rich people, innovation, inventors, etc. You've shown that through your posts. So please, don't call me blind. I gave my reasons for everything, if you are illiterate there is nothing I can do to help you....
Until then, I'd love to hear some evidence from you justifying the lawsuit you support against a very innovative company. Or at least some teeny-tiny reasons for why you believe what you "believe".
Until then, you sound silly. But hey, maybe SCO is hiring!