I said on a few occasions that this had to do with the marathon, not with the date. If the marathon took place a day later or a day earlier, that's when the bombs would have gone off.
You're saying "They hate our marathon runners!"?
Same is here, this is profiling and it works.
If profiling works, then you should be closely watched yourself. Right wing extremists being one of the notable terrorist groups.
Watch the total absence of the posters who previously seemed to think that it was just as likely to be the tea party or the Mormon tabernacle choir as Muslims.
It may have been just as likely. And *if* these two turn out to be Muslims, that doesn't mean that those (if any) that suggested those odds were wrong.
Though there have been exceptions this sort of attack, aimed at killing and injuring indiscriminately is the hallmark of Islam.
The US military has killed and injured indiscriminately far more people than Muslim terrorists have. Right through history, from the genocide of the native Americans, through unnecessary nuclear bombings of Japan as a demonstration to Russia, to the invasion of Iraq.
The user has complete freedom with software released under the BSD license too. They don't get any further rights over gpl software itself.
What the gpl does is to not only exert limitations on the software it's put on, but any other software that subsequently makes use of that so called "free" software. Limiting developers whilst doing nothing for users.
The gpl is viral. And viruses aren't a good thing, whether they're in people or computers. I'm glad it's a dying trend.
Stallman is a wannabe tinpot dictator who wants all software to be regulated according to his diktats. He wants to end software engineering as a career that you can actually earn a living from.
But if I take the time to write a difficult Kernel driver I'm contributing arduous, "real," "could have been paid for it," work to a specific ecosystem that I want to protect.
That's fine. But don't pretend that is providing more freedom than assigning a BSD license would. It's not. You are choosing to restrict the people that can use your code, and that's not a move for freedom.
But that's not what he said. He said "after Microsoft or Apple sell an ad supported product for cheaper", and Apple don't sell ad-supported products for cheaper.
The endorsement messages do not come from the individuals you might endorse. Again, these are generated by LinkedIn, and the language makes that clear. Did you actually read them?
Here's one, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Needless to say there's no chance Roland wrote this.
"Roland Rat is requesting an endorsement for work
Dear Basil, I'm sending this to ask you for a brief recommendation of my work that I can include in my LinkedIn profile. If you have any questions, let me know.
I don't believe that's true. I keep getting messages supposedly from people asking me to "endorse" there experience in one way or another. But they are from people that wouldn't ask me such a thing.
Is there any actual point to LinkedIn? Does anyone actually ever do any networking that way? I haven't noticed any in the years that I've lazily had an account. It's about time I shut the account down.
As long as its a public place, others will just have to shut up and put up with it.
Live in a gated community do you? No, other people don't have to shut up and put up with it. Their freedom to protest at your public use of Google glass is just as great as your freedom to use it.
Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.
And yet at the same time they are preventing developers for charging for software. It's like a developer magnet... pointing the wrong way.
That's a thought. By that or the use of CSS media, one should be able to block Google glass users from accessing a site just as easily as optimising a site for Google glass. Another fine way of boycotting it.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, now I know where your bigotry comes from. A plague on both your houses. Rational people don't believe in invisible friends.
I said on a few occasions that this had to do with the marathon, not with the date. If the marathon took place a day later or a day earlier, that's when the bombs would have gone off.
You're saying "They hate our marathon runners!"?
Same is here, this is profiling and it works.
If profiling works, then you should be closely watched yourself. Right wing extremists being one of the notable terrorist groups.
None of which has anything to do with the post you are replying to. Did you get a talking points email or something?
Do you have a religion yourself?
Now look at the list of terror attacks in 2012
None of those happened in the USA. Here's a list of Islamic attack attempts in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
And here's a far bigger list of all terrorism attempts in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present
If you guess every terrorism attack in the USA is Islamic, you're going to be wrong more often than you are right.
Watch the total absence of the posters who previously seemed to think that it was just as likely to be the tea party or the Mormon tabernacle choir as Muslims.
It may have been just as likely. And *if* these two turn out to be Muslims, that doesn't mean that those (if any) that suggested those odds were wrong.
Though there have been exceptions this sort of attack, aimed at killing and injuring indiscriminately is the hallmark of Islam.
The US military has killed and injured indiscriminately far more people than Muslim terrorists have. Right through history, from the genocide of the native Americans, through unnecessary nuclear bombings of Japan as a demonstration to Russia, to the invasion of Iraq.
They are Islamist, that much certain
Is it? Do you actually know that, or are you doing the equivalent of "They're from America so they must be Christians".
You missed out "racist". They were picking out people based on whether they had brown skin.
There's anaesthetic darts, and they use them to tranquillise wild animals. But I don't think they'd be much use in a gun-fight.
Ah, you fit the profile of a google glass user perfectly... No social conscience.
The BSD license doesn't enslave anyone. Nor does commercial software come to that.
But the gpl movement is an attempt to kill software engineering as a career you can earn a living from.
The user has complete freedom with software released under the BSD license too. They don't get any further rights over gpl software itself.
What the gpl does is to not only exert limitations on the software it's put on, but any other software that subsequently makes use of that so called "free" software. Limiting developers whilst doing nothing for users.
The gpl is viral. And viruses aren't a good thing, whether they're in people or computers. I'm glad it's a dying trend.
Stallman is a wannabe tinpot dictator who wants all software to be regulated according to his diktats. He wants to end software engineering as a career that you can actually earn a living from.
Indeed. So people should stop pretending the GPL is about freedom and admit it's about restriction.
In fewer words: BSD is a license which benefits creators. GPL benefits consumers.
At least that's the theory. In practice most consumers prefer commercial software.
But if I take the time to write a difficult Kernel driver I'm contributing arduous, "real," "could have been paid for it," work to a specific ecosystem that I want to protect.
That's fine. But don't pretend that is providing more freedom than assigning a BSD license would. It's not. You are choosing to restrict the people that can use your code, and that's not a move for freedom.
So I don't have to shut up and put up with it after all.
But that's not what he said. He said "after Microsoft or Apple sell an ad supported product for cheaper", and Apple don't sell ad-supported products for cheaper.
The endorsement messages do not come from the individuals you might endorse. Again, these are generated by LinkedIn, and the language makes that clear. Did you actually read them?
Here's one, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Needless to say there's no chance Roland wrote this.
"Roland Rat is requesting an endorsement for work
Dear Basil,
I'm sending this to ask you for a brief recommendation of my work that I can include in my LinkedIn profile. If you have any questions, let me know.
Thanks in advance for helping me out.
-Roland Rat"
LinkedIn are liars.
I don't believe that's true. I keep getting messages supposedly from people asking me to "endorse" there experience in one way or another. But they are from people that wouldn't ask me such a thing.
Is there any actual point to LinkedIn? Does anyone actually ever do any networking that way? I haven't noticed any in the years that I've lazily had an account. It's about time I shut the account down.
As long as its a public place, others will just have to shut up and put up with it.
Live in a gated community do you? No, other people don't have to shut up and put up with it. Their freedom to protest at your public use of Google glass is just as great as your freedom to use it.
Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.
And yet at the same time they are preventing developers for charging for software. It's like a developer magnet... pointing the wrong way.
That's a thought. By that or the use of CSS media, one should be able to block Google glass users from accessing a site just as easily as optimising a site for Google glass. Another fine way of boycotting it.
Don't worry - no one will come and shove them down your throat.
Well that's one of two places where owners are going to find them shoved if they aren't very careful about where they use them.
Selfish mobile phones users in cinemas have nothing on the potential for jerks to be annoying with Google glass.
MOST. PEOPLE. WANT.
You need to get out more. Most people haven't got a clue what it is. And if they see people wearing them they'll think they're assholes.