No, and he won't understand. He's one of those people who, if asked, will probably identify as being sceptical, yet is more concerned with locating conspiracy than in developing a realistic understanding of a situation. Look at how the belief that "cyber war" is being overhyped is the backbone of his argument as to why North Korea is not a threat. Even accepting that military and intelligence agencies will work to create a market for themselves, that doesn't brush away the decades of sabre rattling we've seen from the DPRK.
I find it difficult to believe that the DPRK will be content to mind its own business, and occasionally firing rickety rockets in to the Sea of Japan. Barring a major change of circumstances, the DPRK will continue to develop its offensive capabilities. Without aggression, what else do they have to bargain with. The example of Iraq may dissuade them from going at it hammer and tongs, as does their need to avoid upsetting China by causing shit in their backyard. I imagine like you, I don't advocate marching in to North Korea. We're dealing with a nation subjected to unprecedented levels of isolation and propaganda, and China and Japan would be pretty miffed if a US/European invasion force turned up on their doorstep. Containment, with the possibility of limited strikes in response to real threats, seem the only practical options. When the DPRK falls, or perhaps begins following China's path, it'll be far worse than the ending of the GDR. At least in the GDR, there were people with far more exposure to the outside world, and those who remember living in a state that didn't fence its citzens in behind barbed wire. Also, the GDR's fall has helped by Soviet unwillingness to intervene to prop up the regime. Would China do the same in the case of the DPRK? I think it's the waiting game, with the hope that increased prosperity and stability in Asia will leave nations there less willing to suffer the impact and risks associated with having this basket case for a neighbour.
I can imagine the scene in Tehran when Iran's diplomats return to give the good news to the Supreme Obsessive Compulsive. In North Korea they found a country led by a man whose dad invented electricity and basketball. How can they fail when allied to such genius?
I'm not sure how you managed it, but it appears that you went here when you should have gone here for information on the Republican platform. See? No baby eating or organ selling.
This platform seems a bit weak. When will America finally have a party whose members work to outlaw abortion, reduce access to contraception, deny gay marriage, and shoe-horn religion in to the science classroom?
Nothing new. Slashdot has for a long time tempered interesting articles with red flag bullshit. I consider these articles to be a honey pot for people wanting to vent and the nutters who feel its useful to respond.
You're the anomaly here. You go find a useful story to comment on. I'll distract the idiots.
Hey guyz! The operating system you prefer is crap because it's menus are different, and I believe it's cost to be way different to the OS that has become my religion.
His mention of "sweet tooths" jumping for joy is probably a joke. The trek to the fridge to fetch another tub of Chunky Munky seems nothing compared to a trip of several hundred light years.
"Inducement" is the key word. Arguing that providing a C++ compiler is itself inducement to violate patents is as realistic as suing Xerox for inciting people to photocopy Twilight novels. I don't doubt that there are some cunts in this world who would indeed like to use the law that way, and try. Ideally the bulk of such cases would be dismissed, with the plaintiff's lawyers being disbarred, shot, revived, and shot again.
They can be doing both. I did paper routes and shop work when I was in my teens. Handy bit of extra money, got me in to the work routine, and didn't do me any harm.
We have no way of knowing how many people died as a result of actions by Manning and Assange
We have no way of knowing how many people die instantly when distracted from driving by a recollection of an episode of Cheers. That's not exactly a convincing argument you've got there.
In the case of both Apple and Samsung, you have a legal department that you're already paying anyway, so the costs of litigation amount to practically nothing.
It doesn't make sense to retain on payroll a legal team able to litigate in all territories in which a company operates. Some US states require membership of their respective bar associations, so think of the cost of covering that. Scale this up to an international scale and what you have is a legal department so big they may as well begin farming it out Amazon AWS style.
What's more likely is that they retain legal teams to handle compliance and assess legal issues. Where serious litigation comes in to the picture, they'll engage a law firm. See this story for an example of Samsung using a law firm. Amusingly enough, one of their lawyers overlooked the need to be registered with the local bar association:
Read the fine summary? people socially bitcoining their way through this cloudy web 3.0 thing don't have time for such things. Seriously though, the story is indeed worth reading. Much geek wood to be had.
Thanks. Looks pretty clear cut, as I cant imagine Marriott signing a contract that specifically states "devices for novelty use - not expected to function as locks".
Maybe to a company that knows the LAW when it comes to selling hardware that is FIT FOR PURPOSE!
Maybe they are perfectly within the law. In the UK, consumers cannot waive protections given by the Sales of Goods Act, but businesses can. It's not as black and white for businesses as it is with consumers. Exactly which law do you think the lock company should know, and how do you know they're breaking it?
I do agree though - go elsewhere for locks. Even if not contractually or legally obliged to do so, with such a sloppy and blatant design issue, Onity should be picking up the tab. Hopefully the bigger chains will walk away from Onity.
With so much litigation, a long track record of failure, and a rapidly deteriorating financial position, it seems odd that they were able to persist until they destroyed any value that could have been used to settle the debts due to the companies they tried to shake-down. Shouldn't there be some point at which legal action is stopped when a plaintiff is clearly unable already to deal with the costs it's running up on other people's tabs?
A person who honestly believes truth does not exist is criminally insane and should be restrained for life. Pushing an innocent old person in front of a bus or setting fire to house while the residents sleep is wrong , that will always be true. The reason that people like the idea that truth does not exist it they think it frees them from moral obligation.
No, those points are not always true, and the term "true" is better defined before you use it this way. What if the old innocent person has a terminal and painful disease, and a loving friend or relative has this as the only way to end the suffering that has rendered their life useless misery? What if the residents of the house have a disease so dangerous that there can be no risk of allowing it to escape the building? There's far more nuance here, but what we can do is use reason to establish a common morality that most people would agree upon, even if there's no magical force in the universe to give it legitimacy.
I recall a thought experiment in which the reader has to design the society in which they'll live, but they can't know which position in society they themselves will occupy, leading most people to devise a society in which life at all levels is as fair as it can be. I'd bet these societies, given some thought, would be far superior to anything mandated by the Bible. Funny you should mention slavery, as slavery would probably not figure highly in them. The reason why some people deny the existence of universal truth is because they lack the arrogance to make such unfounded assertions - particularly when universal truth is a fancy way of saying "here's how I think things should work".
If you believe that socialism is a monolithic entity that strives for godless communism, well, you've just not read your Bible or studied the lives of the early Christians. The sharing of resources, which was not always voluntary, was a common feature of the groups. Acts 4:32?
The problem we have is a sizeable chunk of people who think that prayer was banned in school and that the Ten Commandments are the basis of US law. For fun ask a proponent of the Ten Commandments to name all ten commandments, in order. For bonus points, ask them to explain how the first four commandments are represented in the legal code of any founding documents.
Some of this we can indeed address by being informative and civil. At some level in this faction, it's quite understood that secular education undermines this fundamentalist mindset. Decent folks don't want their kids coming home asking fool questions about monkeys. They worry about their kids going off to college, and coming back darksided. It's been long established that we have to fight this mentality, and in time things will change. I see some benefit in ridicule, but in general the real fundies are ridiculed simply through exposure. Perhaps seeing the ugly face of creationism will disuade some from pushing for it in school, but in other cases they'll do the old Christian trick of deciding that only they hold the One True Interpretation of Christianity.
Respect too is a funny thing. I've had plenty of discussions with Christians, and been in relationships with them. It's alarming sometimes how easy it can be to be disrespectful, which is something I try to avoid. When someone asserts that being good is impossible without God, do I respond to this? It's risky, because as we go down the rabbit hole, I have to be conscious that pointing out simple facts easily becomes an attack on their religion. This frustrates me because I enjoy theology. I love discussing scripture and Christian history, but some of it is news to Christians, and contradicts what they've come to believe. You see what I'm saying here? The fight is difficult to avoid when shining light on certain areas triggers the defence mechanism.
Their staffing costs are low, with them employing about as many people as the average hotdog stand, and they make it very easy to obtain qualifications that'll sometimes not be laughed at. Come to think of it, just slip the hotdog guy a ten and ask him to write "BA in Jesus Studies" on a napkin. Take that to a real university and see if they'll accept you on a masters program. Probably not, but it'll have been cheaper than Patriot Bible, and you'll get a hotdog while you're buying your worthless qualification.
I went exclusively to Catholic schools, and while I disliked the compulsory worship (even when I was a Christian), outside of religious education class and the morning assembly, religion did not intrude in the curriculum. Science education was extensive, with sex-education included in biology (albeit with little advice in the use of contraceptives). We studied literature that would have been pretty edgy, and in art it's not like we were banned from using nudity in our work.
While I do want to see an end to the Catholic near monopoly on schooling in some countries, it's the smaller groups, typically imported from America or the middle-east, that are causing issues. Catholicism (eventually) follows the line given by Augustine in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. A foolishly rigid literal interpretation of scripture and doctrine actually undermines the entire religion because how can I believe a single word from a Christian's mouth when vehemently argue a point that is demonstrably false?
The only people I see portraying Jesus as some kind of champion of free markets and capitalism would be nuts over at Conservapedia, and the Christians who think it normal that they live in luxury that couldn't be any more removed from the lifestyle of Jesus and his early followers if they relocated to a moonbase built of gold, staffed by sex slaves and powered by the tears of orphans.
Which is actually a weasel statement when you look at it closely enough. By Christian theology, what *isn't* God's? Of course, Jesus was answering a "gotcha" question that was trying to trap him into advocating not paying Roman taxes, so a little weaseling might have been justified.
I don't agree that it's a weaselly statement. Jesus preached a lifestyle of asceticism, and was an apocalyptic preacher. The impending (seemingly now indefinitely postponed) end of the world that was due to occur during the lifetime of his followers meant that worldly possessions were pretty useless. For believers of Christ, hoarding money and possessions makes as much sense as trying to board a Titanic lifeboat,with a dining table under each arm. There's no way one would be allowed to bring the table in to the boat, and the time wasted dragging the thing would probably mean the boat has long since sailed by the time one would arrive.
I'm left wondering what Yarro (the largest shareholder) was thinking, and to a lesser extent, the other shareholders. By the time Yarro received Canopy's 30% share of SCO, it must have been pretty clear that McBride's strategy was turning to shit, and that IBM would vigorously fight SCO's poorly evidenced and sometimes nonsensical claims. I can think of three possibilities:
1) Yarro and the shareholders were batshit crazy. 2) The shareholders considered the almost certain decimation of their investment to be worth risking for the big payout possible if SCO were to win something other than the right to appeal - again. They were going against a number of companies, one of which has very deep pockets and a reputation for fighting these kinds of things. 3) Yarro, and perhaps others, were being otherwise compensated for allowing SCO to engage in a suicide mission. Keeping McBride at the helm for so long suggests that they needed a crazy cunt (or idiot) of a man who'd stay at the wheel as the flames lick around him.
Slashdot Mirror
do you understand?
No, and he won't understand. He's one of those people who, if asked, will probably identify as being sceptical, yet is more concerned with locating conspiracy than in developing a realistic understanding of a situation. Look at how the belief that "cyber war" is being overhyped is the backbone of his argument as to why North Korea is not a threat. Even accepting that military and intelligence agencies will work to create a market for themselves, that doesn't brush away the decades of sabre rattling we've seen from the DPRK.
I find it difficult to believe that the DPRK will be content to mind its own business, and occasionally firing rickety rockets in to the Sea of Japan. Barring a major change of circumstances, the DPRK will continue to develop its offensive capabilities. Without aggression, what else do they have to bargain with. The example of Iraq may dissuade them from going at it hammer and tongs, as does their need to avoid upsetting China by causing shit in their backyard. I imagine like you, I don't advocate marching in to North Korea. We're dealing with a nation subjected to unprecedented levels of isolation and propaganda, and China and Japan would be pretty miffed if a US/European invasion force turned up on their doorstep. Containment, with the possibility of limited strikes in response to real threats, seem the only practical options. When the DPRK falls, or perhaps begins following China's path, it'll be far worse than the ending of the GDR. At least in the GDR, there were people with far more exposure to the outside world, and those who remember living in a state that didn't fence its citzens in behind barbed wire. Also, the GDR's fall has helped by Soviet unwillingness to intervene to prop up the regime. Would China do the same in the case of the DPRK? I think it's the waiting game, with the hope that increased prosperity and stability in Asia will leave nations there less willing to suffer the impact and risks associated with having this basket case for a neighbour.
I can imagine the scene in Tehran when Iran's diplomats return to give the good news to the Supreme Obsessive Compulsive. In North Korea they found a country led by a man whose dad invented electricity and basketball. How can they fail when allied to such genius?
I'm not sure how you managed it, but it appears that you went here when you should have gone here for information on the Republican platform. See? No baby eating or organ selling.
This platform seems a bit weak. When will America finally have a party whose members work to outlaw abortion, reduce access to contraception, deny gay marriage, and shoe-horn religion in to the science classroom?
Nothing new. Slashdot has for a long time tempered interesting articles with red flag bullshit. I consider these articles to be a honey pot for people wanting to vent and the nutters who feel its useful to respond.
You're the anomaly here. You go find a useful story to comment on. I'll distract the idiots.
Hey guyz! The operating system you prefer is crap because it's menus are different, and I believe it's cost to be way different to the OS that has become my religion.
Cheers. Nice username.
His mention of "sweet tooths" jumping for joy is probably a joke. The trek to the fridge to fetch another tub of Chunky Munky seems nothing compared to a trip of several hundred light years.
See this article for additional guidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
God spilt the sugar when he was making tea in Russell's Teapot.
"Inducement" is the key word. Arguing that providing a C++ compiler is itself inducement to violate patents is as realistic as suing Xerox for inciting people to photocopy Twilight novels. I don't doubt that there are some cunts in this world who would indeed like to use the law that way, and try. Ideally the bulk of such cases would be dismissed, with the plaintiff's lawyers being disbarred, shot, revived, and shot again.
They can be doing both. I did paper routes and shop work when I was in my teens. Handy bit of extra money, got me in to the work routine, and didn't do me any harm.
The hookers I dismember are absolutely unrelated.
Piracy of Linux is indeed a serious issue. I found quite a few Linux torrents at TPB.
We have no way of knowing how many people died as a result of actions by Manning and Assange
We have no way of knowing how many people die instantly when distracted from driving by a recollection of an episode of Cheers. That's not exactly a convincing argument you've got there.
In the case of both Apple and Samsung, you have a legal department that you're already paying anyway, so the costs of litigation amount to practically nothing.
It doesn't make sense to retain on payroll a legal team able to litigate in all territories in which a company operates. Some US states require membership of their respective bar associations, so think of the cost of covering that. Scale this up to an international scale and what you have is a legal department so big they may as well begin farming it out Amazon AWS style.
What's more likely is that they retain legal teams to handle compliance and assess legal issues. Where serious litigation comes in to the picture, they'll engage a law firm. See this story for an example of Samsung using a law firm. Amusingly enough, one of their lawyers overlooked the need to be registered with the local bar association:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1168100/samsung_could_face_court_penalty_over_lawyers_oversight.html
Long story short - legal action is not free by any stretch of the imagination.
Read the fine summary? people socially bitcoining their way through this cloudy web 3.0 thing don't have time for such things. Seriously though, the story is indeed worth reading. Much geek wood to be had.
A common misconception. Mac OS X's kernel (XNU) is based on Mach and the FreeBSD kernel (among other things). Can I have my pedantry mod?
Thanks. Looks pretty clear cut, as I cant imagine Marriott signing a contract that specifically states "devices for novelty use - not expected to function as locks".
Maybe to a company that knows the LAW when it comes to selling hardware that is FIT FOR PURPOSE!
Maybe they are perfectly within the law. In the UK, consumers cannot waive protections given by the Sales of Goods Act, but businesses can. It's not as black and white for businesses as it is with consumers. Exactly which law do you think the lock company should know, and how do you know they're breaking it?
I do agree though - go elsewhere for locks. Even if not contractually or legally obliged to do so, with such a sloppy and blatant design issue, Onity should be picking up the tab. Hopefully the bigger chains will walk away from Onity.
I don't trust computers. I watched a Highlander II DVD on mine, and since then I've a very expensive portable locked in the cupboard doing nothing.
With so much litigation, a long track record of failure, and a rapidly deteriorating financial position, it seems odd that they were able to persist until they destroyed any value that could have been used to settle the debts due to the companies they tried to shake-down. Shouldn't there be some point at which legal action is stopped when a plaintiff is clearly unable already to deal with the costs it's running up on other people's tabs?
A person who honestly believes truth does not exist is criminally insane and should be restrained for life. Pushing an innocent old person in front of a bus or setting fire to house while the residents sleep is wrong , that will always be true. The reason that people like the idea that truth does not exist it they think it frees them from moral obligation.
No, those points are not always true, and the term "true" is better defined before you use it this way. What if the old innocent person has a terminal and painful disease, and a loving friend or relative has this as the only way to end the suffering that has rendered their life useless misery? What if the residents of the house have a disease so dangerous that there can be no risk of allowing it to escape the building? There's far more nuance here, but what we can do is use reason to establish a common morality that most people would agree upon, even if there's no magical force in the universe to give it legitimacy.
I recall a thought experiment in which the reader has to design the society in which they'll live, but they can't know which position in society they themselves will occupy, leading most people to devise a society in which life at all levels is as fair as it can be. I'd bet these societies, given some thought, would be far superior to anything mandated by the Bible. Funny you should mention slavery, as slavery would probably not figure highly in them. The reason why some people deny the existence of universal truth is because they lack the arrogance to make such unfounded assertions - particularly when universal truth is a fancy way of saying "here's how I think things should work".
If you believe that socialism is a monolithic entity that strives for godless communism, well, you've just not read your Bible or studied the lives of the early Christians. The sharing of resources, which was not always voluntary, was a common feature of the groups. Acts 4:32?
The problem we have is a sizeable chunk of people who think that prayer was banned in school and that the Ten Commandments are the basis of US law. For fun ask a proponent of the Ten Commandments to name all ten commandments, in order. For bonus points, ask them to explain how the first four commandments are represented in the legal code of any founding documents.
Some of this we can indeed address by being informative and civil. At some level in this faction, it's quite understood that secular education undermines this fundamentalist mindset. Decent folks don't want their kids coming home asking fool questions about monkeys. They worry about their kids going off to college, and coming back darksided. It's been long established that we have to fight this mentality, and in time things will change. I see some benefit in ridicule, but in general the real fundies are ridiculed simply through exposure. Perhaps seeing the ugly face of creationism will disuade some from pushing for it in school, but in other cases they'll do the old Christian trick of deciding that only they hold the One True Interpretation of Christianity.
Respect too is a funny thing. I've had plenty of discussions with Christians, and been in relationships with them. It's alarming sometimes how easy it can be to be disrespectful, which is something I try to avoid. When someone asserts that being good is impossible without God, do I respond to this? It's risky, because as we go down the rabbit hole, I have to be conscious that pointing out simple facts easily becomes an attack on their religion. This frustrates me because I enjoy theology. I love discussing scripture and Christian history, but some of it is news to Christians, and contradicts what they've come to believe. You see what I'm saying here? The fight is difficult to avoid when shining light on certain areas triggers the defence mechanism.
I'd go for Patriot Bible University
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University
Their staffing costs are low, with them employing about as many people as the average hotdog stand, and they make it very easy to obtain qualifications that'll sometimes not be laughed at. Come to think of it, just slip the hotdog guy a ten and ask him to write "BA in Jesus Studies" on a napkin. Take that to a real university and see if they'll accept you on a masters program. Probably not, but it'll have been cheaper than Patriot Bible, and you'll get a hotdog while you're buying your worthless qualification.
I went exclusively to Catholic schools, and while I disliked the compulsory worship (even when I was a Christian), outside of religious education class and the morning assembly, religion did not intrude in the curriculum. Science education was extensive, with sex-education included in biology (albeit with little advice in the use of contraceptives). We studied literature that would have been pretty edgy, and in art it's not like we were banned from using nudity in our work.
While I do want to see an end to the Catholic near monopoly on schooling in some countries, it's the smaller groups, typically imported from America or the middle-east, that are causing issues. Catholicism (eventually) follows the line given by Augustine in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. A foolishly rigid literal interpretation of scripture and doctrine actually undermines the entire religion because how can I believe a single word from a Christian's mouth when vehemently argue a point that is demonstrably false?
Yeah, it's a pretty odd reading. Reminds me of the Gospel of Supply Side Jesus.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html
The only people I see portraying Jesus as some kind of champion of free markets and capitalism would be nuts over at Conservapedia, and the Christians who think it normal that they live in luxury that couldn't be any more removed from the lifestyle of Jesus and his early followers if they relocated to a moonbase built of gold, staffed by sex slaves and powered by the tears of orphans.
Which is actually a weasel statement when you look at it closely enough. By Christian theology, what *isn't* God's? Of course, Jesus was answering a "gotcha" question that was trying to trap him into advocating not paying Roman taxes, so a little weaseling might have been justified.
I don't agree that it's a weaselly statement. Jesus preached a lifestyle of asceticism, and was an apocalyptic preacher. The impending (seemingly now indefinitely postponed) end of the world that was due to occur during the lifetime of his followers meant that worldly possessions were pretty useless. For believers of Christ, hoarding money and possessions makes as much sense as trying to board a Titanic lifeboat,with a dining table under each arm. There's no way one would be allowed to bring the table in to the boat, and the time wasted dragging the thing would probably mean the boat has long since sailed by the time one would arrive.
I'm left wondering what Yarro (the largest shareholder) was thinking, and to a lesser extent, the other shareholders. By the time Yarro received Canopy's 30% share of SCO, it must have been pretty clear that McBride's strategy was turning to shit, and that IBM would vigorously fight SCO's poorly evidenced and sometimes nonsensical claims. I can think of three possibilities:
1) Yarro and the shareholders were batshit crazy.
2) The shareholders considered the almost certain decimation of their investment to be worth risking for the big payout possible if SCO were to win something other than the right to appeal - again. They were going against a number of companies, one of which has very deep pockets and a reputation for fighting these kinds of things.
3) Yarro, and perhaps others, were being otherwise compensated for allowing SCO to engage in a suicide mission. Keeping McBride at the helm for so long suggests that they needed a crazy cunt (or idiot) of a man who'd stay at the wheel as the flames lick around him.