The King James version of the bible has this passage as:
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
In all actuality the bible has very little on abortion and should not be a basis on the idea of abortion. The bible would go as far to label a 1 month old to be the same as a fetus and gives it no value.
"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -- Leviticus 27:6
The Exodus passage in the literal Hebrew interpretation is confusing at best though. I can't imagine that there needed to be a law written about people fighting forcing a birth. Causation and correlation being completely lost on the people who thought of that is quite obvious in any sense you take it.
That was a nice red herring thrown directly ad hominem.
Gravity is a theory that is currently under dispute on some small scales with matters such as dark matter. You are right that more testing is needed, but that is completely outside the realm of what you are arguging. More testing is needed on embryonic stem cells as well. You are suggesting we not accept things then in the same breath suggesting that we accept things. I hope you can see that.
I won't address the straw man, but I felt like showing you your logical flaw with that statement about gravity.
Have you done zero research on any of this? If you don't understand the difference between pluripotent and multipotent stem cells I would suggest you not comment on this debate. I make this assumption since you don't have the basic understanding of the limitations inherent in the usage of multipotent stem cells. This isn't my area of expertise, but it obviously is not your's either.
There is research currently available that says adult stem cells will not be able to be used in curing type I diabetes. You can ignore that if you like, but I suggest you do some research on it before you jump to conclusions. These modes of resarch are not mutually exclusive and no one is suggesting that all research should be stopped on one avenue to expand another. Nothing is conclusive, and that's why we need to keep researching.
You seem to have latched onto what has been researched for more than 40 years compared to what has had hampered research over less than a decade. I'd suggest dropping that bias.
Re:WTF, now Slashdot is bashing security?
on
Buy Vista or Else
·
· Score: 1
I just took a crap. I'll sell it to you for 20 bucks to use as an air freshener.
Re:Yes, they charge for it. However...
on
Buy Vista or Else
·
· Score: 1
Or you can get a distribution that will upgrade itself without needing you to wipe all the user files.
I don't think anyone wanted the DMCA that wasn't a major business. The DMCA just completely ignores what the people wanted and definitely isn't an example of what the people wanted.
I think we agree that the majority of people have no clue what they want and that's a problem. The government has no reason to check in with those that would suffer the most from what they do as they are often not the majority. That's what a representative democracy is supposed to prevent, but it needs to be maintained in order for that to stay true.
I agree with you though wholeheartedly. The government has grown into something that is unmonitored in the ways that it should be kept under the closest of scrutiny. Along with that, it is taking powers that it was never intended to have.
I just think the angry mob is what is needed at this point. It just can't be a few geeks on/. that do it though, and that's where the problem lies. The people need to demand a change to put the power back in the states and the people instead of the monolith that is the US governemnt.
The government can hold no copyright, trademarks, or patents. So yes, without those.
If the government has the choice of using systems that are as transparent as government operation is at its heart because of these things, it needs to.
About having a large group of people come to a final decision to enact any change... That's not how things work. A change comes that satisfies as many people as possible. That's politics. It doesn't matter if the mob doesn't understand and is foaming.
I had to click the linky to get this, but here's why what you're saying doesn't work:
Obtain a PIC and use it to create a signed.cat file. PICs are issued by Microsoft and can be used to sign kernel-mode modules that are intended for Windows Vista. The PIC verifies the integrity and origin of a driver. To be signed with a PIC, drivers are not required to pass WHQL testing.
Interestingly, you need this PIC through Microsoft. That's not the end of what you need though.
To obtain a PIC, a publisher must first obtain a VeriSign Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate. Registration with Verisign results in establishing a credential that can be used to establish a Microsoft Windows Quality Online Services (Winqual) account. The publisher can then use that certificate to authenticate itself to Microsoft. If the certificate is valid, Microsoft issues a PIC.
A publisher typically completes the authentication process once a year through the Winqual Web site. The process is completed over a channel that is protected by the secure sockets layer (SSL). Figure 1 illustrates the process of obtaining a PIC. For more information about Winqual, see "Resources" at the end of this paper.
To issue a commercial software publisher certificate, VeriSign must be able to authenticate the identity of the person and organization applying for the certificate. The most convenient method for a software publisher to establish organizational identity is to submit a D-U-N-S number from Dun & Bradstreet during the enrollment process.
If a software publisher does not have a D-U-N-S number, they can obtain one from a local D&B service center quickly and at low cost. For more information about D&B and getting a D-U-N-S number, please see http://www.dnb.com.
To ensure the commercial viability of a software publisher, Microsoft has arranged for VeriSign to check a company's D&B Financial Stress Rating as part of its authentication process. If a company's financial stress rating is 1, 2, or 3 (on a 5-point scale with 1 representing the lowest level of risk), the VeriSign Commercial Software Publisher (Class 3) Digital ID will indicate that the company has met Microsoft's criteria for identification as a commercial software publisher. If the company's rating is 4 or 5, VeriSign will undertake additional checking to determine whether the company meets commercial software publisher criteria. If no financial stress rating exists for a company, the Commercial Software Publisher (Class 3) Digital ID will indicate that.
In the event that a softwarepublisher cannot get a D-U-N-S number, they can submit articles of incorporation to VeriSign (translated into English).
You can go to the website mentioned and find where I can sign up if I am someone writing open source drivers or I am not incorporated and wish to write drivers.
Yes, I agree with you. It will require a company to make drivers and I can't decide what I want to use on my computer. That "paper trail" is bloody useless if the computer can't do a single thing that I want it to. Installing whatever random drivers or hardware that I want to is part of that.
Just because Joe Stupid can't use his computer without hand holding I am being punished. At least, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that Microsoft is putting up a barrier for entry. I believe neither of those are particularly great.
I don't have the official drivers for the graphics cards installed. I have tweaked versions of beta drivers.
Forcing me into using specific drivers is still what this boils down to. Shutting out developers from having easy entry is what this boils down to. This is all about creating barriers to entry on various levels.
You misread the/, crowd. It's anti-stupid-assed-patent not anti-NTP. You may have missed the other stories that have been posted before about patent reform?
Yeah, my one signed driver on my motherboard would love this. Too bad that's the only signed driver I have. Goodbye mouse, soundcard, network card, video card, amd RAID. But at least I know where my drivers are coming from. Perhaps I should run them through my signed USB drivers?
I use the word "my" here loosely by the way, that's on my brother's computer (I use all Linux.) If you think I shouldn't be able to use my tweaked drivers and hopefully someday open source drivers, you're crazy. I guess the current development model rocks so freaking much that we need to keep all the drivers proprietary and never move towards an open source model.
Think this through a bit more and you'll see the impact is much deeper than with malware. It's to just completely kill out using your own hardware (not a large market, but it DOES happen.) or writing your own drivers.
Anyways, this is the best news I've heard in a while. Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot like this to try and hinder the long term could go both ways. I'm hoping it works out for the better.
I guess this must be one of those partisan issues that I don't get. Everyone and everything will have an agenda. When that agenda works for you, go with it. Don't bash the positive because of something negative. The guy who donated a million dollars is known to have gone home and beat his wife while he was drunk has the same effect as the pastor who donated the same.
I don't think anyone would argue that the ACLU has a political leaning. It doesn't mean that their work should be vilified.
I'm not a big fan of ECHELON by any means, but there is a distinct difference in what is going on with those. By all appearances the administration was not using ECHELON to spy on Americans for the most part. When ECHELON was used domestically all appearances pointed towards FISA being used.
I'm by no means an expert on any of this but bashing an organization for protecting civil liberties regardless of their political leanings seems kind of strange to me. I don't care who decides to stand up for people's rights whether it be in The US or Europe or North Korea. I'm just happy that someone has the ability to, even if under certain scrutiny it would appear that they are biased in some way.
Hopefully that made sense, I'm just working on getting back into the swing of politics and wasn't with it for that long anyways.
It's not the basis for the argument though. They're just heaping it on showing that Intel was supposed to be in a market position allowing for competition and did everything they could to damage AMD.
The typical juror just needs to be shown that what that compiler produced was used to make purchasing decisions and was referenced by Intel along with expert testimony saying that the code outputted would favor Intel. It's not as if it has to be woven in some way that violates a law directly. Just showing what they were doing to harm their market rival. That's what the suit is about.
I told this to someone with very little computer knowledge as she was in the room while I was discussing it. Her reaction was "can they do that?" If that is even somewhat typical of a feeling towards that, I believe it would sway the jurors. It's alright if you see it differently. I just think that if the jury is put in the mindset of "you can't take actions that directly harm other companies through market position." which is what the trial is about, I believe this will be a nice piece to submit to that order.
If this were a "you have a monopoly and we are asshats" lawsuit being put forth by AMD, you would have a point. Interestingly enough, this is an antitrust (not the best summary but some links that are helpful. But it may just get the ball rolling.) lawsuit. You don't have to be a monopoly to be in violation of antitrust standards and laws. That's why Intel lost in Japan.
You're really just shifting the argument. Intel went out of their way to make their compiler not work with AMD processors, which raises a problem. This is a jury trial anyways so the legality of this is not as important as the "Intel are assholes" factor that it will have on the jury.
If he wants to attempt to model the relationship between population and innovation, he needs to limit the population in his model to that of developed nations with strong educational systems.
I'm not sure your idea of removing the USA from this study will yield the best results.
The idea of hype is for it to build on itself. Anyways, if a younger child was watching G4 to see the new games and heard that teraflops meant calculations and the Xbox360 had 1 and the PS3 had 2, what would he tell his parents to buy? Without a background in how those numbers are used in a real world situation it's just marketing hype.
It's meant to make people perceive or report improperly that the PS3 has the potential to achieve super computer levels in gaming. Sony actually said this themselves, although the article has expired. (Slashdot search would bring up the thread, but I am too lazy to link it.) It's all about perception in marketing. Sony and Microsoft hope that you believe you are buying a machine that will crush your computer. They won't say it directly (probably), but that's the perception they are wishing to imbue.
Well, considering the claims of the PS3 having enough power to enter deep into the latest top 500 lists, I'd say that is a decent amount of hype. You won't notice the limitations because you have no idea what you are looking for, nor does anyone else. 2 teraflops is a LOT of power.
The pure numbers are not realistic. If they meant something, the PS3 would be twice as intense as an Xbox360. That's why people are calling it what it is. A company over hyping their next gen.
Numbers I've read have said that 35% of internet users, in fact, do not have their native language as English. This also does not count English speakers accessing sites in a second language. Unicode characters had this issue before, however it was supposed to have been resolved. The unicode that is used in Firefox for this is dependant for how it is displayed based on fonts outside of the program.
This is a security bug. This is bad. No doubt. It will end up having to be fixed on the browser end. In my opinion though, that is a major kludge.
A standard for accessing international websites using special characters is not comparable to a programming language that is horribly designed. Are you suggesting that dragging your feet for five years before implementing a standard some feel is required is proper security?
The issue at hand here is that Firefox did not create IDN. Microsoft _did_ create ActiveX. The blame falls in both cases on Microsoft for being slow to implement something and absolutely ignorant to create ActiveX.
In other words, if there is a spoofing exploit in css3 and Microsoft has not implemented it, is it the people who implemented it who are at fault or the people who created it? You're looking towards the wrong people for this problem I believe.
The issue is that Microsoft creates its own proprietary formats along with those programs. If they bundled something to open Open Document files, no one would complain.
It's the fact that they create their own standards and then tightly integrate. If Internet Explorer developers had looked at the specs put out by the W3C I personally would not have cared if people used Internet Explorer.
As it stands, that bundling hurts web development. Look at any application that Microsoft bundles. It alters the standard every time I am aware of.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a nice red herring thrown directly ad hominem.
Gravity is a theory that is currently under dispute on some small scales with matters such as dark matter. You are right that more testing is needed, but that is completely outside the realm of what you are arguging. More testing is needed on embryonic stem cells as well. You are suggesting we not accept things then in the same breath suggesting that we accept things. I hope you can see that.
I won't address the straw man, but I felt like showing you your logical flaw with that statement about gravity.
Wow.
Have you done zero research on any of this? If you don't understand the difference between pluripotent and multipotent stem cells I would suggest you not comment on this debate. I make this assumption since you don't have the basic understanding of the limitations inherent in the usage of multipotent stem cells. This isn't my area of expertise, but it obviously is not your's either.
There is research currently available that says adult stem cells will not be able to be used in curing type I diabetes. You can ignore that if you like, but I suggest you do some research on it before you jump to conclusions. These modes of resarch are not mutually exclusive and no one is suggesting that all research should be stopped on one avenue to expand another. Nothing is conclusive, and that's why we need to keep researching.
You seem to have latched onto what has been researched for more than 40 years compared to what has had hampered research over less than a decade. I'd suggest dropping that bias.
I just took a crap. I'll sell it to you for 20 bucks to use as an air freshener.
Or you can get a distribution that will upgrade itself without needing you to wipe all the user files.
I don't think anyone wanted the DMCA that wasn't a major business. The DMCA just completely ignores what the people wanted and definitely isn't an example of what the people wanted.
/. that do it though, and that's where the problem lies. The people need to demand a change to put the power back in the states and the people instead of the monolith that is the US governemnt.
I think we agree that the majority of people have no clue what they want and that's a problem. The government has no reason to check in with those that would suffer the most from what they do as they are often not the majority. That's what a representative democracy is supposed to prevent, but it needs to be maintained in order for that to stay true.
I agree with you though wholeheartedly. The government has grown into something that is unmonitored in the ways that it should be kept under the closest of scrutiny. Along with that, it is taking powers that it was never intended to have.
I just think the angry mob is what is needed at this point. It just can't be a few geeks on
Anyways, I talk too much.
The government can hold no copyright, trademarks, or patents. So yes, without those.
If the government has the choice of using systems that are as transparent as government operation is at its heart because of these things, it needs to.
About having a large group of people come to a final decision to enact any change... That's not how things work. A change comes that satisfies as many people as possible. That's politics. It doesn't matter if the mob doesn't understand and is foaming.
Yes, I agree with you. It will require a company to make drivers and I can't decide what I want to use on my computer. That "paper trail" is bloody useless if the computer can't do a single thing that I want it to. Installing whatever random drivers or hardware that I want to is part of that.
Just because Joe Stupid can't use his computer without hand holding I am being punished. At least, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that Microsoft is putting up a barrier for entry. I believe neither of those are particularly great.
I don't have the official drivers for the graphics cards installed. I have tweaked versions of beta drivers.
Forcing me into using specific drivers is still what this boils down to. Shutting out developers from having easy entry is what this boils down to. This is all about creating barriers to entry on various levels.
You misread the /, crowd. It's anti-stupid-assed-patent not anti-NTP. You may have missed the other stories that have been posted before about patent reform?
I didn't read what you had to say after that.
Yeah, my one signed driver on my motherboard would love this. Too bad that's the only signed driver I have. Goodbye mouse, soundcard, network card, video card, amd RAID. But at least I know where my drivers are coming from. Perhaps I should run them through my signed USB drivers?
I use the word "my" here loosely by the way, that's on my brother's computer (I use all Linux.) If you think I shouldn't be able to use my tweaked drivers and hopefully someday open source drivers, you're crazy. I guess the current development model rocks so freaking much that we need to keep all the drivers proprietary and never move towards an open source model.
Think this through a bit more and you'll see the impact is much deeper than with malware. It's to just completely kill out using your own hardware (not a large market, but it DOES happen.) or writing your own drivers.
Anyways, this is the best news I've heard in a while. Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot like this to try and hinder the long term could go both ways. I'm hoping it works out for the better.
I guess this must be one of those partisan issues that I don't get. Everyone and everything will have an agenda. When that agenda works for you, go with it. Don't bash the positive because of something negative. The guy who donated a million dollars is known to have gone home and beat his wife while he was drunk has the same effect as the pastor who donated the same.
I don't think anyone would argue that the ACLU has a political leaning. It doesn't mean that their work should be vilified.
I'm not a big fan of ECHELON by any means, but there is a distinct difference in what is going on with those. By all appearances the administration was not using ECHELON to spy on Americans for the most part. When ECHELON was used domestically all appearances pointed towards FISA being used.
I'm by no means an expert on any of this but bashing an organization for protecting civil liberties regardless of their political leanings seems kind of strange to me. I don't care who decides to stand up for people's rights whether it be in The US or Europe or North Korea. I'm just happy that someone has the ability to, even if under certain scrutiny it would appear that they are biased in some way.
Hopefully that made sense, I'm just working on getting back into the swing of politics and wasn't with it for that long anyways.
Could you explain how the two relate?
As I said, it's a mindset for the jury. I'm not a lawyer and have no clue on things. I just know this doesn't look good for Intel.
It's not the basis for the argument though. They're just heaping it on showing that Intel was supposed to be in a market position allowing for competition and did everything they could to damage AMD.
The typical juror just needs to be shown that what that compiler produced was used to make purchasing decisions and was referenced by Intel along with expert testimony saying that the code outputted would favor Intel. It's not as if it has to be woven in some way that violates a law directly. Just showing what they were doing to harm their market rival. That's what the suit is about.
I told this to someone with very little computer knowledge as she was in the room while I was discussing it. Her reaction was "can they do that?" If that is even somewhat typical of a feeling towards that, I believe it would sway the jurors. It's alright if you see it differently. I just think that if the jury is put in the mindset of "you can't take actions that directly harm other companies through market position." which is what the trial is about, I believe this will be a nice piece to submit to that order.
If this were a "you have a monopoly and we are asshats" lawsuit being put forth by AMD, you would have a point. Interestingly enough, this is an antitrust (not the best summary but some links that are helpful. But it may just get the ball rolling.) lawsuit. You don't have to be a monopoly to be in violation of antitrust standards and laws. That's why Intel lost in Japan.
You're really just shifting the argument. Intel went out of their way to make their compiler not work with AMD processors, which raises a problem. This is a jury trial anyways so the legality of this is not as important as the "Intel are assholes" factor that it will have on the jury.
I'm not sure your idea of removing the USA from this study will yield the best results.
The idea of hype is for it to build on itself. Anyways, if a younger child was watching G4 to see the new games and heard that teraflops meant calculations and the Xbox360 had 1 and the PS3 had 2, what would he tell his parents to buy? Without a background in how those numbers are used in a real world situation it's just marketing hype.
It's meant to make people perceive or report improperly that the PS3 has the potential to achieve super computer levels in gaming. Sony actually said this themselves, although the article has expired. (Slashdot search would bring up the thread, but I am too lazy to link it.) It's all about perception in marketing. Sony and Microsoft hope that you believe you are buying a machine that will crush your computer. They won't say it directly (probably), but that's the perception they are wishing to imbue.
Well, considering the claims of the PS3 having enough power to enter deep into the latest top 500 lists, I'd say that is a decent amount of hype. You won't notice the limitations because you have no idea what you are looking for, nor does anyone else. 2 teraflops is a LOT of power.
The pure numbers are not realistic. If they meant something, the PS3 would be twice as intense as an Xbox360. That's why people are calling it what it is. A company over hyping their next gen.
Numbers I've read have said that 35% of internet users, in fact, do not have their native language as English. This also does not count English speakers accessing sites in a second language. Unicode characters had this issue before, however it was supposed to have been resolved. The unicode that is used in Firefox for this is dependant for how it is displayed based on fonts outside of the program.
This is a security bug. This is bad. No doubt. It will end up having to be fixed on the browser end. In my opinion though, that is a major kludge.
A standard for accessing international websites using special characters is not comparable to a programming language that is horribly designed. Are you suggesting that dragging your feet for five years before implementing a standard some feel is required is proper security?
The issue at hand here is that Firefox did not create IDN. Microsoft _did_ create ActiveX. The blame falls in both cases on Microsoft for being slow to implement something and absolutely ignorant to create ActiveX.
In other words, if there is a spoofing exploit in css3 and Microsoft has not implemented it, is it the people who implemented it who are at fault or the people who created it? You're looking towards the wrong people for this problem I believe.
The issue is that Microsoft creates its own proprietary formats along with those programs. If they bundled something to open Open Document files, no one would complain.
It's the fact that they create their own standards and then tightly integrate. If Internet Explorer developers had looked at the specs put out by the W3C I personally would not have cared if people used Internet Explorer.
As it stands, that bundling hurts web development. Look at any application that Microsoft bundles. It alters the standard every time I am aware of.
Arrrr matey. When dealin' wit' pirates, everytin' be a salvo!