I understand entirely that many very wise (and tyrranical) individuals have stated religion is a tool for oppression. "Religion is the opiate of the people."
What I'm looking for is a "who's who" of religious oppression today. Are there any cases where inner circle members of religious institutions come out and said: "this is a scam, people should not be involved in this." (Of course, even if they did, the chance of anyone believing them is nil.)
Yes, we can speculate quite a bit philosophically and practically about how religion has been or is used to control the masses. Unfortunately, unless you are one of the people doing the manipulating, it's impossible to say with absolute certainty what the reality is. Claiming religion is nefarious has frequently been an arguing point for those who are anti-religion. Nevertheless, this is a "who orchestrated JFK's assassination" kind of question. It's a conspiracy theory.
But very quickly I had to spend a couple of hours doing things like learning how to set up header files in order to re-compile my kernal to support NVIDIA drivers.
...which shows you've never done this yourself, so you're talking out of your ass.
I can't get my sound card to work. The best I have gotten for folks with the exact same configuration is "buy a new soundcard and save yourself the trouble".
If your sound card isn't automatically detected and installed by any modern Linux distro, you have either A) broken hardware or B) ancient hardware that won't work in Windows NT/2K/XP either.
God forbid I want to hook up my digital camera.
Linux sees mine as a USB storage device, the same as Windows does. I plug it in, it works. Of course, I cannot speak for your hardware. Scanners may be something else, but then they aren't easy to set up under Windows either.
Do you suppose anyone has (or has the initiative) to create fonts and rulesets for use in a LaTeX environment? I suppose this guy's work could be adapted to the cause.
I tried 2.6.0-test2 today and I am a little confused. It appears to have cryptoapi+cryptoloop built in, but I am unable to mount my encrypted file systems. I've been using kernel crypto to mount physical disks through a loopback cipher for some time now using util-linux 2.11. What changed in 2.6 that the old technique for doing this no longer works. Is util-linux 2.12 required to make this work? Any help?
Plenty of evidence suggests that organized religion was intentionally created as a form of mass control of the populace.
Just for my edification, care to deliver any such evidence or summaries of such evidence? That's a very bold statement and while I am disinclined to disagree, I want to know what this is based on.
You say that the gravity of these particles is "basically zero". You could also say the friction of water running over a surface is "basically zero". How then do you account for the formation of the Grand Canyon or any stream, river, etc.?
There is no friction in space to counteract the inertia of the explosion's particles. Therefore one would assume that they'd fly out from the explosion at the same rate forever w/o ever hitting one another as they all blew out away from the same point.
You mention that the gravity of the particles is "basically zero". How do you define "basically zero". Does that mean zero or non-zero? If the latter, does that mean less than or greater than zero? I can only assume you mean greater than. What effect do you think all these tiny amounts of gravity will have over billions of years? Do you honestly think that these particles will not gather over time?
The web is an interactive medium. While using it, your brain is active (well, except when reloading/posting to Slashdot on 2-3 minute cycles). TV is 100% passive (unless you're using it to trigger discussion). You cannot surf the web without learning something or at some point causing your mind to think. So, more power to them! Keep it up kids!
Needless to say, I am astonished that anybody continues to use Windows as a "solution". With that out of the way, let's move on to a prediction.
This could mark the beginning of the end for Microsoft's monopoly. That's a pretty big prediction. Here's why:
Two parts of the software game are the initial buy and continued updates. While most vendors charge for major and minor releases, patch level updates have traditionally been free. Patches, as small as they are in practice, are a huge part of the deal. They keep your software from breaking or being broken. In reality, they are 50% of the package.
But previously, we haven't looked at software this way. We saw the initial package as 100% of the deal. Windows isn't free, open source is. Let's shift the perspective. Windows is 50% free, the first half costing money, the second half being free where as open source remains 100% free. If Microsoft goes through with this, Windows becomes 0% free. Open source will of course, continue to provide free updates. That's a very compelling reason to look at open source in a favorable light because now it wins on two fronts regarding entrance fees, not just one.
What else does this cause? That removal of Microsoft's last free 50% means that half of the package is lost to most consumers of their software. The critical component of the deal that keeps your software functional as time marches forward is lost. Who is going to pay for software updates? I doubt 100% of Microsoft's customers will. I cannot begin to speculate on the numbers, but of the people who won't pay for them, some will pirate (becoming criminals in the process) and others will simply cease to use Microsoft products.
In other words, Mr. Gates, if you are reading this, go right along with your plan: it will help the open source movement tremendously.
On the other hand, it could just mean that people will simply buy major software releases from Microsoft rather than pay for piecewise upgrades. I hope that isn't the case, but luckily, that will cost businesses who have bought into Microsoft nonsense a lot of money. That will make the IT budget people very unhappy, and spur the investigation of alternatives.
At a high level, the concept is cool. The way I would have approached writing this is the idea that life on earth is seeded by higher intelligence. Encrypted messages are then scattered on the planet and in order to be allowed to survive past a couple million years, they must decipher the messages and report back that they've got the answer.
The core premis being that advanced cryptology (I'm not talking Rail Fence or Vigenere, but number theory and extremely large values) requires the advance of many sciences. First, you need physics to develop machines capable of crunching lots of numbers. You need advanced mathematics in concert with that. You need linguistic analysis, which comes from developed language. You get the idea.
Humanity's challenge would be to get over all the stupid bickering and fighting that leads nowhere (except to our own destruction) and concentrate on making ourselves smarter until we succeed in breaking open the message.
Basically, you put monkeys on earth, write encrypted messages on C-60 tablets, wait a couple of million years. If they evolved enough to decipher and understand the message, keep them. If not, rince, lather, repeat. The end goal of the higher intelligence would be to enhance itself by cultivating new forms of intelligence (which would theoretically be unique to every planet intelligent life forms on).
Release hardware specifications and document how the hardware works. Maybe even write an initial proof of concept driver. Of course, finding people interested enough in the hardware to write a driver for it is the trick. Just a suggestion...
I say we get a group to go stand at the north-side fence (by Lafayette Park) of the White House and give a resounding "Boo!" for about 60 seconds while giving thumbs down (no obscene gestures), then just leaving. Absolutely peaceful, no signs, just a really vocal show of disapproval. Saturday, July 26, at 1800EST.
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors,
ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these
numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
You might want to reconsider any data you get from this. Learn something from/.
S'OKay, that's good thinking! That's nothing to be sorry for. I was wondering the same thing when I first saw the form. If more people though like you did here, computers would probably have more security.
You can have an HTML form on any location that posts to any URL. Read the source for this guy's page. You will see the information is transmitted to SEC's site.
I noticed a comment a few moments ago that hasn't yet been moderated above the default threshold. Please go take a look. Would anyone who knows better please care to comment on whether or not this complaint is reasonable, valid, and safe to submit without aggrivating the SEC?
(As if that were the case.)...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.
I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.
However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?
Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?
I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen
Slashdot Mirror
I understand entirely that many very wise (and tyrranical) individuals have stated religion is a tool for oppression. "Religion is the opiate of the people."
What I'm looking for is a "who's who" of religious oppression today. Are there any cases where inner circle members of religious institutions come out and said: "this is a scam, people should not be involved in this." (Of course, even if they did, the chance of anyone believing them is nil.)
Yes, we can speculate quite a bit philosophically and practically about how religion has been or is used to control the masses. Unfortunately, unless you are one of the people doing the manipulating, it's impossible to say with absolute certainty what the reality is. Claiming religion is nefarious has frequently been an arguing point for those who are anti-religion. Nevertheless, this is a "who orchestrated JFK's assassination" kind of question. It's a conspiracy theory.
But very quickly I had to spend a couple of hours doing things like learning how to set up header files in order to re-compile my kernal to support NVIDIA drivers.
...which shows you've never done this yourself, so you're talking out of your ass.
I can't get my sound card to work. The best I have gotten for folks with the exact same configuration is "buy a new soundcard and save yourself the trouble".
If your sound card isn't automatically detected and installed by any modern Linux distro, you have either A) broken hardware or B) ancient hardware that won't work in Windows NT/2K/XP either.
God forbid I want to hook up my digital camera.
Linux sees mine as a USB storage device, the same as Windows does. I plug it in, it works. Of course, I cannot speak for your hardware. Scanners may be something else, but then they aren't easy to set up under Windows either.
You're a troll.
Sorry!! Got to keep this scientific stuff straight - no room for sloppy thinking!!
*chuckle* No worries, I think we're all foaming at the mouth on many scientific issues here, yourself least of all.
Do you suppose anyone has (or has the initiative) to create fonts and rulesets for use in a LaTeX environment? I suppose this guy's work could be adapted to the cause.
I tried 2.6.0-test2 today and I am a little confused. It appears to have cryptoapi+cryptoloop built in, but I am unable to mount my encrypted file systems. I've been using kernel crypto to mount physical disks through a loopback cipher for some time now using util-linux 2.11. What changed in 2.6 that the old technique for doing this no longer works. Is util-linux 2.12 required to make this work? Any help?
Plenty of evidence suggests that organized religion was intentionally created as a form of mass control of the populace.
Just for my edification, care to deliver any such evidence or summaries of such evidence? That's a very bold statement and while I am disinclined to disagree, I want to know what this is based on.
You say that the gravity of these particles is "basically zero". You could also say the friction of water running over a surface is "basically zero". How then do you account for the formation of the Grand Canyon or any stream, river, etc.?
There is no friction in space to counteract the inertia of the explosion's particles. Therefore one would assume that they'd fly out from the explosion at the same rate forever w/o ever hitting one another as they all blew out away from the same point.
Ever hear of universal gravitation?
You mention that the gravity of the particles is "basically zero". How do you define "basically zero". Does that mean zero or non-zero? If the latter, does that mean less than or greater than zero? I can only assume you mean greater than. What effect do you think all these tiny amounts of gravity will have over billions of years? Do you honestly think that these particles will not gather over time?Is it just me, or do the web pages of our GroBartige Abteilung der Vaterland-Sicherheit look like it was made by a 14 year old?
BONGHITS WILL FIX MY MAKEFILE
The web is an interactive medium. While using it, your brain is active (well, except when reloading/posting to Slashdot on 2-3 minute cycles). TV is 100% passive (unless you're using it to trigger discussion). You cannot surf the web without learning something or at some point causing your mind to think. So, more power to them! Keep it up kids!
Needless to say, I am astonished that anybody continues to use Windows as a "solution". With that out of the way, let's move on to a prediction.
This could mark the beginning of the end for Microsoft's monopoly. That's a pretty big prediction. Here's why:
Two parts of the software game are the initial buy and continued updates. While most vendors charge for major and minor releases, patch level updates have traditionally been free. Patches, as small as they are in practice, are a huge part of the deal. They keep your software from breaking or being broken. In reality, they are 50% of the package.
But previously, we haven't looked at software this way. We saw the initial package as 100% of the deal. Windows isn't free, open source is. Let's shift the perspective. Windows is 50% free, the first half costing money, the second half being free where as open source remains 100% free. If Microsoft goes through with this, Windows becomes 0% free. Open source will of course, continue to provide free updates. That's a very compelling reason to look at open source in a favorable light because now it wins on two fronts regarding entrance fees, not just one.
What else does this cause? That removal of Microsoft's last free 50% means that half of the package is lost to most consumers of their software. The critical component of the deal that keeps your software functional as time marches forward is lost. Who is going to pay for software updates? I doubt 100% of Microsoft's customers will. I cannot begin to speculate on the numbers, but of the people who won't pay for them, some will pirate (becoming criminals in the process) and others will simply cease to use Microsoft products.
In other words, Mr. Gates, if you are reading this, go right along with your plan: it will help the open source movement tremendously.
On the other hand, it could just mean that people will simply buy major software releases from Microsoft rather than pay for piecewise upgrades. I hope that isn't the case, but luckily, that will cost businesses who have bought into Microsoft nonsense a lot of money. That will make the IT budget people very unhappy, and spur the investigation of alternatives.
Buy gold in the north east of the North American continent. Sell it in the northern regions of the Rockies.
Argh. You can tell how much brainmush my employment has caused. :(
At a high level, the concept is cool. The way I would have approached writing this is the idea that life on earth is seeded by higher intelligence. Encrypted messages are then scattered on the planet and in order to be allowed to survive past a couple million years, they must decipher the messages and report back that they've got the answer.
The core premis being that advanced cryptology (I'm not talking Rail Fence or Vigenere, but number theory and extremely large values) requires the advance of many sciences. First, you need physics to develop machines capable of crunching lots of numbers. You need advanced mathematics in concert with that. You need linguistic analysis, which comes from developed language. You get the idea.
Humanity's challenge would be to get over all the stupid bickering and fighting that leads nowhere (except to our own destruction) and concentrate on making ourselves smarter until we succeed in breaking open the message.
Basically, you put monkeys on earth, write encrypted messages on C-60 tablets, wait a couple of million years. If they evolved enough to decipher and understand the message, keep them. If not, rince, lather, repeat. The end goal of the higher intelligence would be to enhance itself by cultivating new forms of intelligence (which would theoretically be unique to every planet intelligent life forms on).
Come to think of it, I should write this book...
Release hardware specifications and document how the hardware works. Maybe even write an initial proof of concept driver. Of course, finding people interested enough in the hardware to write a driver for it is the trick. Just a suggestion...
I'll just assume they were being sarcastic. :) Nobody ever gathers near the White House for a show of approval! The very notion is utter nonsense!
I say we get a group to go stand at the north-side fence (by Lafayette Park) of the White House and give a resounding "Boo!" for about 60 seconds while giving thumbs down (no obscene gestures), then just leaving. Absolutely peaceful, no signs, just a really vocal show of disapproval. Saturday, July 26, at 1800EST.
You might want to reconsider any data you get from this. Learn something from /.
If you do this, someday you might actually have a sex with a living, breathing, *biped* (of the OPPOSITE sex)...
/dev/dsp
"Biped" does not imply human, and perhaps your experience is along these lines. Care to elaborate?
While you elaborating, please feel free to be inspired by this:
curl http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.au >
cat free-software-song.au > /dev/dsp; laugh --uncontrollably
S'OKay, that's good thinking! That's nothing to be sorry for. I was wondering the same thing when I first saw the form. If more people though like you did here, computers would probably have more security.
You can have an HTML form on any location that posts to any URL. Read the source for this guy's page. You will see the information is transmitted to SEC's site.
I noticed a comment a few moments ago that hasn't yet been moderated above the default threshold. Please go take a look. Would anyone who knows better please care to comment on whether or not this complaint is reasonable, valid, and safe to submit without aggrivating the SEC?
(As if that were the case.) ...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.
I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.
However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?
Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?
I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen