Well, hopefully the reason for Munich's choosing SUSE was better functionality on technical, economical and political merits alone. Hopefully the spin put forth by salesmen didn't have too much influence when they made up their mind. If that was the case, this hiring isn't much to loose any sleep over.
Worse, imho, is the fact that they hired a person who is in charge of the group setting future C++ standards. Hopefully there are no evil strings attached to this, the only reason might be getting someone with great C++ knowledge in house, but it is still a bit worrying.
I guess you arrived late in the game. Up until somewhere between version 4 or 5 of internet explore Netscape were generally considered the most stable and better browser of the two. The only reasonable use of internet explorer back then was as a tool for downloading Netscape.
The world wide web had already taken off, thanks to Mosaic and Netscape. The company making internet explorer was bought by microsoft when they realized they had missed the train due to Bill Gates' declaration of internet as irrelevant. (Remember, "microsoft network"?)
I see no solution to that problem and if the choice is between them killing us or us killing them I'll vote for us killing them any day of the week. That sounds primitive (and it is) but what better option is there?
Ask any muslim the same question and I guess you will get an answer you did not expect. Btw, you do know they are human too?
Did I say there was or was not a difference? Surrender is still surrender in my eyes. We don't stop fighting for what we believe in just because it's too hard or tough.
I can play that game too: Did I say we should surrender in my original post? No. I said we should change politics, but I did not say in what way. You are the one saying "changing politics" equates "surrender".
So small-scale terrorist attacks are better? All you need to blow up a Pizzeria is somebody to make the bomb and somebody willing to strap it to themselves and carry it in. Is this really a tolerable situation?
Terror is never tolerable, but I would rather have a blown up pizzeria once or twice a year than a 9/11. Would you not? CIA/FBI/NSA might even have enough brains dealing with those small scale hooligans.
Because the last times we gave up and changed our policies (Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine Barracks or Somalia after they killed our troops) they stopped hating us and attacking us. All we did was embolden them to attack us even more. The solution is to hunt them down and kill them -- not give into them.
In a very short sighted perspective you might be right. In a long sighted one you are most certainly wrong. Almost every terrorist you kill will have family or friends who might choose the same path when the news of you killing him reach them. Guess who they will blame? Guess who they will target?
To make my point, when were a minimum of lives lost in the palestine/Israeli conflict? During seize fires or during the interfadas? Sure, militant idiots on both sides killed people during seize fires for keeping the battle which gives them authority going. But the number of casualties decreased dramatically anyway.
The fact is we did know where Bin Laden was several years back, and occasionally know where he is even today, though we can't reach him before he moves again. A beam weapon that could hit it's target in minute instead of hours would solve this.
That is what official sources claim. The same sources that said some civilian factory was a legit target, the same sources that said we lived our lives in imminent danger from Saddam's WMDs. You still believe everything they say?
Osama running away while missiles travel long distances sounds to me like something they might think serving as a perfect cover up for some bad intelligence work.
If the possibility exist Osama got away due to bad intelligence, then my so called red herring track is perfectly valid until proven incorrect.
The part about taking out captured planes with the laser was added because it wasn't completly clear how artemis67 meant the laser could stop terrorists. Clem9796 gave a response very similar my own, showing I wasn't the only one not sure of what artemis meant.
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
How are you going to kill Osama with beam weapons when you don't know where he is?
Also known as surrender? Yeah I suppose that works. I'll get in my time machine and tell that to Churchill -- it would have been the most effective way to end the Battle of Britain after all.
With a small amount of thinking you might find a subtle differences between all out war and terrorist activities.
But on a more serious note do you really think this would solve terrorism? Bin Ladin and his ilk desire a World dominated by an Islamic form of Government that would make the Taliban look like a champion of individual liberties and justice. I'm sorry but I'm not ready for my girlfriend/mother/sister to wear a Burka nor am I ready for my younger brother to have his hand cut off because he got caught shoplifting a few years ago.
Changing our policies might deny them a few followers (i.e: the common-man on the street in the Muslim World hating the US and our allies) but it's not going to stop or deter them. Unfortunately it seems like the only way to stop the true fanatics is to kill them.
What you seemingly fail to grasp is that to perform large scale terrorist attacks you need lots of money and lots of personel believing in the cause.
Deny them their followers and you will at the same time deny them their power of executing these terrorist attacks. These followers are the most extreme out of the common men in the street hating US, if you lessen their numbers you also lessen the number of potential terrorists and the money they bring.
that would be an incredibly useful military weapon. Remeber when Bill Clinton "wagged the dog" during Lewinskigate and tried to kill Osama by lobbing a few missles at him? The time it took for the missiles to travel to their destination gave Bin Laden ample time to escape.
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
This is plain laughable.
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
Second, do you really think the military would have had time to react, decide they were a real threat and not a "regular" hijack, and annihilate these airplanes before they reached their targets?
Military fighters were stationed within reach and could easily have shot down these planes if official reaction and decision time were as short as you suggest.
The only way of abolishing terror is by changing the policies that feed the responsible organizations.
Should only reasonable people be given moderator points?
If "reasonable" in this context means people who will not mod up new age mumbo jumbo posts who base their facts on false leaps of logic, then fine by me.
Also, if those statistics show that it is magnitudes more likely of earth born microbes surviving the climate of Io, than native ones evolving seperately, the dangers of introducing our own are pretty much a non issue, imho.
By going and looking, we shed our life and therefore life does exist wherever we go.
Only if the place we go to is habitable for some of the living entities we unwillingly exported there, given they have survived the trip.
Show me one living earth entity (living as in how an encyklopedia would define living) whose life we could successfully shed on the sun, without it failing to be our living ambassador.
Humility also rules that if we believe one thing, the opposite must be true in some form or another. Borderline wackiness, but still humility is funny that way.
Or, we can apply the best logic available to us today onto the problem and clearly state that the probability of life (as we know it atm) on the sun is very slim.
No way of knowing doesn't turn a currently probable "no" into a definate "yes". Believing that would be as stupid as believing that Schrodinger's cat really is dead and alive at the same time.
Regarding the examples showing the errors of humanity: We were wrong, but we are getting better. Increased knowledge leads to even more knowledge at an almost exponential rate, ya know.
and therefore these ecosystems are much larger than human perception currently understands. We can not see the forest for the trees, it would seem. We are like microbes, in a space-like fluid, are we not?
How do you know, where did you get this exclusive knowledge?
I wonder, because you don't say "I believe", "one might assume" or anything to that effect. You state every one of your interresting but unverifiable ideas as proven facts.
Motorcyclists should start installing shaped charges on their bikes in carefully chosen spots. It won't take too many vaporized reckless drivers before motorcycles start getting some more respect.
Ah, but then all motorcyclists would be declared "terrorists" and hunted down with B52's dropping daisy cutters onto them, F15's shooting GPS guided missiles at them and A10's strafing them with their very large miniguns.
If I was a biker, I'd rather have the occasional car running over me than facing that kind of persecution.
Unless you can say right now you're willing to drop $500 on a Linux office suite, you do not matter to them. Now try getting all those buddies together and see how many will drop the cash. Not enough to make it worthwhile from a business perspective I bet.
Most regular consumers never spend anywhere near that amount on office software, they either pirate it, use a stripped down version (works) or use freeware alternatives. The ones who pay this kind of money for applications are businesses and government bureaus. Add to that a lot more of these guys are switching from windows to linux than swithing from windows to macosx.
Nah, that is just billions of Linux, BSD, MacOS, Solaris, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Omniweb, Epiphany, Galeon users (etc.) spoofing their browser ID string as something like "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;.NET CLR 1.1.4322)".
Thus they are getting access to web sites otherwise made unavailable to them by clueless webmasters (or wishes of the customers of these webmasters).:-)
Uhm, unless you are trying to tell us there is an infinite amount of oil hidden away, oil (in all forms) will run out sooner or later as long as we keep using it. It might take a while, but it will run out.
That is why oil isn't on the list of renewable energy sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, hopefully the reason for Munich's choosing SUSE was better functionality on technical, economical and political merits alone. Hopefully the spin put forth by salesmen didn't have too much influence when they made up their mind. If that was the case, this hiring isn't much to loose any sleep over.
Worse, imho, is the fact that they hired a person who is in charge of the group setting future C++ standards. Hopefully there are no evil strings attached to this, the only reason might be getting someone with great C++ knowledge in house, but it is still a bit worrying.
I guess you arrived late in the game. Up until somewhere between version 4 or 5 of internet explore Netscape were generally considered the most stable and better browser of the two. The only reasonable use of internet explorer back then was as a tool for downloading Netscape.
Get your facts straight.
The world wide web had already taken off, thanks to Mosaic and Netscape. The company making internet explorer was bought by microsoft when they realized they had missed the train due to Bill Gates' declaration of internet as irrelevant. (Remember, "microsoft network"?)
No, the MS compiler was developed using the principles of capitalism.
Nothing wrong with that, but GCC and other OS give you more for the same cost, as you get both the compiler and the source for it.
I see no solution to that problem and if the choice is between them killing us or us killing them I'll vote for us killing them any day of the week. That sounds primitive (and it is) but what better option is there?
Ask any muslim the same question and I guess you will get an answer you did not expect. Btw, you do know they are human too?
Did I say there was or was not a difference? Surrender is still surrender in my eyes. We don't stop fighting for what we believe in just because it's too hard or tough.
I can play that game too: Did I say we should surrender in my original post? No. I said we should change politics, but I did not say in what way. You are the one saying "changing politics" equates "surrender".
So small-scale terrorist attacks are better? All you need to blow up a Pizzeria is somebody to make the bomb and somebody willing to strap it to themselves and carry it in. Is this really a tolerable situation?
Terror is never tolerable, but I would rather have a blown up pizzeria once or twice a year than a 9/11. Would you not? CIA/FBI/NSA might even have enough brains dealing with those small scale hooligans.
Because the last times we gave up and changed our policies (Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine Barracks or Somalia after they killed our troops) they stopped hating us and attacking us. All we did was embolden them to attack us even more. The solution is to hunt them down and kill them -- not give into them.
In a very short sighted perspective you might be right. In a long sighted one you are most certainly wrong. Almost every terrorist you kill will have family or friends who might choose the same path when the news of you killing him reach them. Guess who they will blame? Guess who they will target?
To make my point, when were a minimum of lives lost in the palestine/Israeli conflict? During seize fires or during the interfadas? Sure, militant idiots on both sides killed people during seize fires for keeping the battle which gives them authority going. But the number of casualties decreased dramatically anyway.
Whoa, hold your horses cowboy.
The fact is we did know where Bin Laden was several years back, and occasionally know where he is even today, though we can't reach him before he moves again. A beam weapon that could hit it's target in minute instead of hours would solve this.
That is what official sources claim. The same sources that said some civilian factory was a legit target, the same sources that said we lived our lives in imminent danger from Saddam's WMDs. You still believe everything they say?
Osama running away while missiles travel long distances sounds to me like something they might think serving as a perfect cover up for some bad intelligence work.
If the possibility exist Osama got away due to bad intelligence, then my so called red herring track is perfectly valid until proven incorrect.
The part about taking out captured planes with the laser was added because it wasn't completly clear how artemis67 meant the laser could stop terrorists. Clem9796 gave a response very similar my own, showing I wasn't the only one not sure of what artemis meant.
No, you missed the point:
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
How are you going to kill Osama with beam weapons when you don't know where he is?
Also known as surrender? Yeah I suppose that works. I'll get in my time machine and tell that to Churchill -- it would have been the most effective way to end the Battle of Britain after all.
With a small amount of thinking you might find a subtle differences between all out war and terrorist activities.
But on a more serious note do you really think this would solve terrorism? Bin Ladin and his ilk desire a World dominated by an Islamic form of Government that would make the Taliban look like a champion of individual liberties and justice. I'm sorry but I'm not ready for my girlfriend/mother/sister to wear a Burka nor am I ready for my younger brother to have his hand cut off because he got caught shoplifting a few years ago.
Changing our policies might deny them a few followers (i.e: the common-man on the street in the Muslim World hating the US and our allies) but it's not going to stop or deter them. Unfortunately it seems like the only way to stop the true fanatics is to kill them.
What you seemingly fail to grasp is that to perform large scale terrorist attacks you need lots of money and lots of personel believing in the cause.
Deny them their followers and you will at the same time deny them their power of executing these terrorist attacks. These followers are the most extreme out of the common men in the street hating US, if you lessen their numbers you also lessen the number of potential terrorists and the money they bring.
that would be an incredibly useful military weapon. Remeber when Bill Clinton "wagged the dog" during Lewinskigate and tried to kill Osama by lobbing a few missles at him? The time it took for the missiles to travel to their destination gave Bin Laden ample time to escape.
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
This is plain laughable.
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
Second, do you really think the military would have had time to react, decide they were a real threat and not a "regular" hijack, and annihilate these airplanes before they reached their targets?
Military fighters were stationed within reach and could easily have shot down these planes if official reaction and decision time were as short as you suggest.
The only way of abolishing terror is by changing the policies that feed the responsible organizations.
If you think mr Gates was depicted as Borg because he was the richest man alive, then you have some reading up to do.
Should only reasonable people be given moderator points?
If "reasonable" in this context means people who will not mod up new age mumbo jumbo posts who base their facts on false leaps of logic, then fine by me.
which is a lot more likely, statistically
:)
Show me these statistics you referr to, please.
Also, if those statistics show that it is magnitudes more likely of earth born microbes surviving the climate of Io, than native ones evolving seperately, the dangers of introducing our own are pretty much a non issue, imho.
By going and looking, we shed our life and therefore life does exist wherever we go.
Only if the place we go to is habitable for some of the living entities we unwillingly exported there, given they have survived the trip.
Show me one living earth entity (living as in how an encyklopedia would define living) whose life we could successfully shed on the sun, without it failing to be our living ambassador.
Humility also rules that if we believe one thing, the opposite must be true in some form or another. Borderline wackiness, but still humility is funny that way.
Borderline wacky, no. Outright wrong, yes.
Memorable quotes from a movie we all would like to forget?
Or, we can apply the best logic available to us today onto the problem and clearly state that the probability of life (as we know it atm) on the sun is very slim.
No way of knowing doesn't turn a currently probable "no" into a definate "yes". Believing that would be as stupid as believing that Schrodinger's cat really is dead and alive at the same time.
Regarding the examples showing the errors of humanity: We were wrong, but we are getting better. Increased knowledge leads to even more knowledge at an almost exponential rate, ya know.
and therefore these ecosystems are much larger than human perception currently understands. We can not see the forest for the trees, it would seem. We are like microbes, in a space-like fluid, are we not?
How do you know, where did you get this exclusive knowledge?
I wonder, because you don't say "I believe", "one might assume" or anything to that effect. You state every one of your interresting but unverifiable ideas as proven facts.
Hell, I wouldn't know about Grim Skunk if it weren't for public file sharing. /Not Canadian
Motorcyclists should start installing shaped charges on their bikes in carefully chosen spots. It won't take too many vaporized reckless drivers before motorcycles start getting some more respect.
Ah, but then all motorcyclists would be declared "terrorists" and hunted down with B52's dropping daisy cutters onto them, F15's shooting GPS guided missiles at them and A10's strafing them with their very large miniguns.
If I was a biker, I'd rather have the occasional car running over me than facing that kind of persecution.
Unless you can say right now you're willing to drop $500 on a Linux office suite, you do not matter to them. Now try getting all those buddies together and see how many will drop the cash. Not enough to make it worthwhile from a business perspective I bet.
Most regular consumers never spend anywhere near that amount on office software, they either pirate it, use a stripped down version (works) or use freeware alternatives. The ones who pay this kind of money for applications are businesses and government bureaus. Add to that a lot more of these guys are switching from windows to linux than swithing from windows to macosx.
Nah, that is just billions of Linux, BSD, MacOS, Solaris, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Omniweb, Epiphany, Galeon users (etc.) spoofing their browser ID string as something like "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)".
:-)
Thus they are getting access to web sites otherwise made unavailable to them by clueless webmasters (or wishes of the customers of these webmasters).
And when he actually dies, no one in the slashdot community will ever believe it.
Much like most of the slashdot community will never use Google's GMail, because "It doesn't exist! It's only an April's fools prank!".
The pages att http://gmail.google.com are still there. Also, in this article today on Forbes site Google say Gmail was no prank.
According to slashdot users I'm funny, insightful, and interesting! So why arn't girls all over me?
:)
Because you are so damn informative. Girls hate know-it-alls.
Uhm, unless you are trying to tell us there is an infinite amount of oil hidden away, oil (in all forms) will run out sooner or later as long as we keep using it. It might take a while, but it will run out.
That is why oil isn't on the list of renewable energy sources.