That's the perception we got last time when we invaded Iraq, and learned in the aftermath that it was a misperception. I doubt people will buy it this time around if he tries the same thing again. More likely, they're setting up for a McCain led invasion of Iran since people are more likely to trust him if he says "Iran attacked us" than if Bush says it (not that either scenario is likely).
That was never the perception. That's part of what they tried to sell us. That and that Sadam had WMD and was ready to use them at any moment. "We don't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud" was what they kept saying. I personally never bought it. I never bought that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attacks and neither did the 9/11 Commission. The administration never cared who was responsible for those attacks. They were hell-bent on Sadam since Bush Sr. backed off at the Kuwait-Iraq border in the early 90s. If it weren't for the Clinton appointees directing us toward Osama bin Laden the first strikes would have been against Iraq and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.
You are correct, Obama has changed tunes and the reason is unclear. The CIA was told what information to feed the rest of government; they tried to give the right information.
Yes and no. Read George Tenet's book "At The Center of The Storm" and you will find that the administration already had their minds made up and even wrote their own reports to support their positions regardless of what CIA could or could not corroborate with actual intelligence.
And before anyone mentions the self-serving nature of a memoir, he actually defends the administration for nearly the first third of the book.
The artist and the quality of the sound are what make me buy music. It is the same as it ever was and when lossless digital files start becoming the primary material "pirated" I'll be shocked and appalled - but, you see - those of us who love music won't steal from our artists.
The labels take care of that for you.
Really, unless you are walking into Steven Tyler's house and lifting a twenty from his wallet you aren't stealing either - no matter what the labels want to call it. The law does not call it theft, it's copyright infringement.
It is interesting that you mention the "community". It has always seemed to me that the "community" exists only when the point is to hate a corporation. The rest of the time it looks like a bunch of bickering groups that hardly get along with each other because their leaders have decreed that some software license is incompatible with another. That's probably where the term "open sores" comes from. And you don't mind people calling it "open sores", right?
That's because as individuals we tend to think for ourselves. It's like herding cats until we get behind something that we can all agree on like Bill Gates being the seed of the devil's loins.
Well, even if the software becomes public domain -- which might be a good idea -- that's not really the biggest problem users have. The biggest problem is getting support.
It's important not to confusing public domain and free software. Free software includes access to source code and any trade secret or other IP embodied in that source code. Chances are you aren't so much concerned about copying your abandonware to different hardware, as keeping it running, if necessary on hardware that didn't exist back in the day. For that you need source, and the right to do things with the source. You need free software.
And to do it right - Microsoft needs to make it GPL so you can't just improve and close up your improvements so that Microsoft can't build on it later. Or does that mean it has to be BSD? So they can wrap it up later...
I'm positive that GPL does what it is meant to do - and does it well. My desire is to understand why people call it "freedom" when it truly restricts freedoms as I see it.
The GPL does what it does by granting the users of software the freedom to see how it does what it does. It gives me the freedom to see how the kernel does things. That's why people call it freedom. That was Stallman's whole reason for the GPL. It prevents you from locking up code so that I can't see it. If you choose to use GPL code then you agree to release the source to the end users.
Selling GPL'd code is not that profitable as GPL explicitly allows redistribution at no cost.
No. The GPL explicitly requires distribution of the source code should someone who has already received a compiled copy of a work ask for the underlying source. It does not say that you have to give your source away to everyone.
I can only hope (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @10:08PM (#24093325)
that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.
Re:I can only hope (Score:2)
by JebusIsLord (566856) on Monday July 07, @10:19PM (#24093487) Homepage
How very human of you.
Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.
Being a decent person seems to be inverse to to one's level of religion. The more religious they are the less decent they are. You would think you infidels had learned this by now.
---------------
+5 Flamebait
Even the logs don't really tell you anything, there are numerous sites that will reject a new browser or a browser running on linux because they were to pathetically lazy to test it. The result is I like many others frequently spoof our browser's ID. Many site's will crash and burn when presented with Mozilla on Linux work fine when told the browser is IE7 on Vista. One day I'm going to tell sites that I'm a Googlebot and see what happens.
The real problem wasn't addressed: how many Firefox users still keep Windows and IE up to date?
There has been a great deal of malware which uses the Firefox browser as an attack vector on old vulnerabilities in IE... which it would be unable to do had Windows/IE been kept up to date.
A majority of Firefox users are keeping ONLY that application up to date, and letting everything else go to hell. So this article is quite meaningless... especially when you factor in all the 0-day Firefox exploits.
It depends on how the survey was done. Did they collect user string data from log files? Then it's based on what people are actually using. Meaning that people would be using outdated versions. If it was a survey where people clicked the "about" menu item then the result is entirely different. I suspect that it's the former though since they include the percentages of browser usage as well.
"Yeah!! Because lowering barriers-to-entry into the market and encouraging businesses to be competitive are so communistic.
Oh wait..."
You honestly think open source encourages competition? I removes all competition, which isn't the same thing.
If you are competing on merits then sometimes the pay for software is better. It's not removing competition, it's changing it. If price doesn't matter then the better product wins.
I haven't followed all of the links on NYCL's site, but he states that the defendant didn't even own a computer at the time the infringement took place while the RIAA clearly says she did. They don't site any evidence in the letter to the judge. I wonder if there is evidence that she owned a computer or if the burden of proof is not required in a request to dismiss?
Right now, the Democrats have a small majority in the House and a single-vote majority in the Senate.
I said GOP run. I'm aware that the dems have the numbers but the GOP (for some reason I can not grasp) still seem to run the place.
The reason that the GOP still seems to run the place is that it takes a 60% majority to force cloture or override a Presidential veto. The Dems don't have it. It takes 40% to control the Senate.
I imagine it's a lot easier to type in a PIN stolen from a database than it is to, um, change your thumbprint or the pattern of the veins in your retina to one stolen from a database.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
I think the idea is that if you have access to the database you can insert your information replacing someone else's.
You jest, but there's actually a good reason for saying "ATM machine" and "PIN number" and the like.
If you just say "ATM cards," you could be referring to cards that have a magnetic strip that are put into Automated Teller Machines or you could be referring to cards (PCI, etc) that are part of a router or computer that's communicating using Asynchronous Transfer Mode. PIN code could be referring to a Personal Identification Number or it could be the ICD-9 code for Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Progressive Inflammatory Neuropathy (yes, I used wikipedia and no, I have no idea whether those two conditions have actual ICD-9 codes).
Now in this case, it's pretty clear by the context which references the acronyms are intended to refer to, but that's not always the case. And in cases where there's any ambiguity, it can be very useful to append the full word represented by the last letter of the acronym. This is especially true when an acronym has multiple definitions within a certain space. For instance, ASP can mean Application Service Provider or Active Server Page and there are many contexts where it would be easy to confuse the two. But using ASP provider or ASP page removes the ambiguity.
Perhaps if the real inventors of the internet hadn't basically come out and validated his quote in full, you could get away with saying that, but since they did (and since you took that snippet out of a context that actually explains HOW he did it) I'm left with you having some axe to grind with Gore (and I can't imagine what it is at this point). He probably thinks Al caused global warming by talking too much...
Indeed. A paranoid republican President inspired the creation of the court. A paranoid republican President decided to avoid the court - instead making up his own authority relying on the "state of war" to justify his actions. He forgets that he is just as easily giving this power to a Democrat when he is removed from office.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but we just heard that 3.11 wasn't going to be supported anymore.
That's the perception we got last time when we invaded Iraq, and learned in the aftermath that it was a misperception. I doubt people will buy it this time around if he tries the same thing again. More likely, they're setting up for a McCain led invasion of Iran since people are more likely to trust him if he says "Iran attacked us" than if Bush says it (not that either scenario is likely).
That was never the perception. That's part of what they tried to sell us. That and that Sadam had WMD and was ready to use them at any moment. "We don't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud" was what they kept saying. I personally never bought it. I never bought that Iraq was part of the 9/11 attacks and neither did the 9/11 Commission. The administration never cared who was responsible for those attacks. They were hell-bent on Sadam since Bush Sr. backed off at the Kuwait-Iraq border in the early 90s. If it weren't for the Clinton appointees directing us toward Osama bin Laden the first strikes would have been against Iraq and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.
You are correct, Obama has changed tunes and the reason is unclear. The CIA was told what information to feed the rest of government; they tried to give the right information.
Yes and no. Read George Tenet's book "At The Center of The Storm" and you will find that the administration already had their minds made up and even wrote their own reports to support their positions regardless of what CIA could or could not corroborate with actual intelligence.
And before anyone mentions the self-serving nature of a memoir, he actually defends the administration for nearly the first third of the book.
It might go hand in hand, but downloading isn't the same as "making available" which is the angle they seem to be going for.
The artist and the quality of the sound are what make me buy music. It is the same as it ever was and when lossless digital files start becoming the primary material "pirated" I'll be shocked and appalled - but, you see - those of us who love music won't steal from our artists.
The labels take care of that for you.
Really, unless you are walking into Steven Tyler's house and lifting a twenty from his wallet you aren't stealing either - no matter what the labels want to call it. The law does not call it theft, it's copyright infringement.
So, just stealing it and later saying "the system is broken" is some pretty strange logic. Ford makes cars. Should we just steal those too?
No. But if someone burned me a copy of their Mustang I would probably take it.
It is interesting that you mention the "community". It has always seemed to me that the "community" exists only when the point is to hate a corporation. The rest of the time it looks like a bunch of bickering groups that hardly get along with each other because their leaders have decreed that some software license is incompatible with another. That's probably where the term "open sores" comes from. And you don't mind people calling it "open sores", right?
That's because as individuals we tend to think for ourselves. It's like herding cats until we get behind something that we can all agree on like Bill Gates being the seed of the devil's loins.
childish monikers... big ears.
Well, even if the software becomes public domain -- which might be a good idea -- that's not really the biggest problem users have. The biggest problem is getting support.
It's important not to confusing public domain and free software. Free software includes access to source code and any trade secret or other IP embodied in that source code. Chances are you aren't so much concerned about copying your abandonware to different hardware, as keeping it running, if necessary on hardware that didn't exist back in the day. For that you need source, and the right to do things with the source. You need free software.
And to do it right - Microsoft needs to make it GPL so you can't just improve and close up your improvements so that Microsoft can't build on it later. Or does that mean it has to be BSD? So they can wrap it up later...
I'm positive that GPL does what it is meant to do - and does it well. My desire is to understand why people call it "freedom" when it truly restricts freedoms as I see it.
The GPL does what it does by granting the users of software the freedom to see how it does what it does. It gives me the freedom to see how the kernel does things. That's why people call it freedom. That was Stallman's whole reason for the GPL. It prevents you from locking up code so that I can't see it. If you choose to use GPL code then you agree to release the source to the end users.
Selling GPL'd code is not that profitable as GPL explicitly allows redistribution at no cost.
No. The GPL explicitly requires distribution of the source code should someone who has already received a compiled copy of a work ask for the underlying source. It does not say that you have to give your source away to everyone.
Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.
Being a decent person seems to be inverse to to one's level of religion. The more religious they are the less decent they are. You would think you infidels had learned this by now.
--------------- +5 Flamebait
Even the logs don't really tell you anything, there are numerous sites that will reject a new browser or a browser running on linux because they were to pathetically lazy to test it. The result is I like many others frequently spoof our browser's ID. Many site's will crash and burn when presented with Mozilla on Linux work fine when told the browser is IE7 on Vista. One day I'm going to tell sites that I'm a Googlebot and see what happens.
That means that Firefox use is actually higher.
The real problem wasn't addressed: how many Firefox users still keep Windows and IE up to date?
There has been a great deal of malware which uses the Firefox browser as an attack vector on old vulnerabilities in IE... which it would be unable to do had Windows/IE been kept up to date.
A majority of Firefox users are keeping ONLY that application up to date, and letting everything else go to hell. So this article is quite meaningless... especially when you factor in all the 0-day Firefox exploits.
It depends on how the survey was done. Did they collect user string data from log files? Then it's based on what people are actually using. Meaning that people would be using outdated versions. If it was a survey where people clicked the "about" menu item then the result is entirely different. I suspect that it's the former though since they include the percentages of browser usage as well.
"Yeah!! Because lowering barriers-to-entry into the market and encouraging businesses to be competitive are so communistic.
Oh wait..."
You honestly think open source encourages competition? I removes all competition, which isn't the same thing.
If you are competing on merits then sometimes the pay for software is better. It's not removing competition, it's changing it. If price doesn't matter then the better product wins.
I haven't followed all of the links on NYCL's site, but he states that the defendant didn't even own a computer at the time the infringement took place while the RIAA clearly says she did. They don't site any evidence in the letter to the judge. I wonder if there is evidence that she owned a computer or if the burden of proof is not required in a request to dismiss?
If you think that the GOP control the Senate, why haven't the Bush tax cuts been made permanent, or Social Security privatized?
Because they are not good ideas and it gives Bush a windmill to tilt at.
I said GOP run. I'm aware that the dems have the numbers but the GOP (for some reason I can not grasp) still seem to run the place.
The reason that the GOP still seems to run the place is that it takes a 60% majority to force cloture or override a Presidential veto. The Dems don't have it. It takes 40% to control the Senate.
Which means - according to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson - that global warming is on the way out.
I imagine it's a lot easier to type in a PIN stolen from a database than it is to, um, change your thumbprint or the pattern of the veins in your retina to one stolen from a database.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
I think the idea is that if you have access to the database you can insert your information replacing someone else's.You jest, but there's actually a good reason for saying "ATM machine" and "PIN number" and the like.
If you just say "ATM cards," you could be referring to cards that have a magnetic strip that are put into Automated Teller Machines or you could be referring to cards (PCI, etc) that are part of a router or computer that's communicating using Asynchronous Transfer Mode. PIN code could be referring to a Personal Identification Number or it could be the ICD-9 code for Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Progressive Inflammatory Neuropathy (yes, I used wikipedia and no, I have no idea whether those two conditions have actual ICD-9 codes).
Now in this case, it's pretty clear by the context which references the acronyms are intended to refer to, but that's not always the case. And in cases where there's any ambiguity, it can be very useful to append the full word represented by the last letter of the acronym. This is especially true when an acronym has multiple definitions within a certain space. For instance, ASP can mean Application Service Provider or Active Server Page and there are many contexts where it would be easy to confuse the two. But using ASP provider or ASP page removes the ambiguity.
ID-10-TNo. We're spending At&T's money on making secure rooms where the entire internet is archived/searched for the benefit of the government.
Indeed. A paranoid republican President inspired the creation of the court. A paranoid republican President decided to avoid the court - instead making up his own authority relying on the "state of war" to justify his actions. He forgets that he is just as easily giving this power to a Democrat when he is removed from office.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=143186&cid=12003282