C: YOU are completely missing the point. Nobody said anything about moral issues. What was said was that people who are saying we can't do this are too narrow minded and short sighted; this is a TECHNICAL issue (notice once again: technical NOT moral). People with a wide field of vision who are visionary recognize that we will eventually overcome the issues of shielding so that comic radiation will not be an issue some time in the future. That is why the meek will indeed inherit the earth. The strong and intelligent will be off inheriting the stars while your descendants are wondering where everyone went.
Oh, and obviously they are showing people what they are doing. They are just saying they don't know the physics/physical mechanism(s) that makes it happen... from critical reading, I believe that means at the atomic level.
You cannot prove the absence of something. Also, if there is relatively little science being done by laymen, it is because of academic snobs such as yourself. I wonder how many discoveries have been missed because people are discouraged from experimenting. BTW, I'm not saying what these guys did actually works or does not work until it is independently verified. However I am not willing to discredit them until the work is independently verified. Go back inside your closed mind now, I'm not interested in hearing from limited, narrow viewpoints. Especially ones that are self imposed.
How much of the science we do today is based on experiments done by people from the 17th century to the early 20th century who had no formal training, and had no clue what really caused the results. I can't remember the name of the French fellow (I believe he was a tax collector) who gave us the conservation of mass rule. He concluded that burning things did not make them disappear but just changed the material into gases and ash etc. However he and no-one had any idea what an atom was/is so couldn't tell you what exactly was happening. Did that make his experimental results any less valid? No.
I really hate academic snobbery. Just because you have a degree or masters or doctorate, doesn't make you smarter than others. I just means you had time and money that some others may not have had. Granted you need to have some intelligence to get these, but it doesn't mean others aren't intelligent too. I think sometimes that having a degree limits some people with their arrogance. I admit that I see this far more in Canada than in the United States (one of the things I like about the U.S.A.). One thing about software I kind of like is how many created this industry we have now, who never received a degree. Four people on this Time Magazine list have backgrounds or worked in some form of science related activity. They were college dropouts.
It would be funny if the naive only buried themselves, but somehow they manage to cover everyone else up with dirt even after they themselves are six feet under.
And on a related note, I thought the U.S. was selling any technology developed directly with government funds (or indirectly through contracts) directly to foreign competitors anyway. Heck didn't GE just sell its best technology to China over dinner at the White House last night. So I don't understand the background checks, unless they want to weed out people who want to see Americans employed making American developed technology.
In the 90s, I worked with a woman whose last name was Jane 'Ericson' (first name is faked, last name is real). Being somewhat conservative, she was horrified when someone pointed out that MS Word had auto corrected her 'signature' to read Jane Erection.
Poke an animal with a stick while it is alive is one thing (even if I don't quite like this analogy). Keep poking and annoying it while it is dying is cruel, and at best in very poor taste.
I always had the understanding that at one time Bulgaria was responsible for much of the viruses and malware being written and distributed. If so that would be a good starting point for, for profit malware etc. (e.g. organized crime). Given a lot of the paranoia going on these days, I find it easy to believe organized crime in that country could afford to pay off some of the authorities to arrest the fellow on some sort of trumped up "cyber-security". I imagine they still have some old rooms used by Soviet era authorities to hold people who didn't toe the line. And along that line, there is still probably some "expertise" around that knows how to make people disappear for long lengths of time, if not forever. This is how I read it. I didn't even have any such thoughts that he might have gone into hiding himself (either I don't think innocently enough or I still have a distrust of governments over there until the old Soviet guard finally die... and I don't trust the new United Secret America as much as I used to either). A knowledgeable person like him, I would think that he could communicate via computer somehow and maintain the secrecy of his physical location.
If you take the point: time = money, then yes I am talking about cost as well as freedom. But not necessarily. If I tell you that I will give you something, but in return you MUST do something for someone else, then you are not giving that something away for free. You are attaching a condition. A condition in this case is a constraint, and a constraint by definition is the opposite of free.
In the case of FSF, you give me something for free, but then tell me I HAVE to give away whatever I work on that uses it. While I think it is a nice, and often good thing to do, by telling me I HAVE to do it is putting a condition/constraint on my using your code. You are forcing me to do something if I use your code. If we were talking in terms of money, you would be forcing me to give you money in return for your product. There is quid pro quo in both scenarios.
I agree with the merits of the FSF and the GPL, but sorely disagree with people running around telling everyone it is 'free' and 'open', regardless of the beer analogies you might use. They are good projects but please, I wish people involved in them would stop trying to dress this up as something more than a form of forced software socialism (and I don't believe that all aspects of socialism are bad, after all, I like communal pooling of resources to pay for police and fire services, public education, etc.). I know GPL people hate to hear this, but I believe that Apache and BSD are far closer to real free and open software than GPL is, as they don't put constraints on the users of their code. Meanwhile, the GPL gets ever more restrictive (e.g. v2 to v3).
Finally I am really bothered by the fact that people here will mod people as a troll if they don't agree that the GPL and the FSF are really free. People who do this are just as bad as the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who can't stand people to disagree with them. Especially when I am right.:p
So what part of "you have to give your code away if you use ours" isn't telling you what to do with your own code? I do know a policy of "use our code and do whatever you want with it (including giving away your own code if you want)" is not telling someone what to do. I guess you must like benevolent dictators too. I'll tell you what to do because it is good for you, and I'm nice.
To the FSF, you're more free if you fight things that threaten freedom; to the open source movement, you're more free if you can do more.
FTFY: "To the FSF, you're more free if you do what we tell you to; to the open source movement, you're more free if we don't mandate what you have to do."
According to one person familiar with the matter, Messrs. Muglia and Ballmer disagreed about how to allocate resources within the division to new areas that aren't yet delivering big sales, such as cloud computing. Mr. Muglia's group oversees Windows Azure, an online service that lets businesses develop and run applications in Microsoft data centers.
From the sounds of it, Muglia placed less emphasis on cloud computing than Ballmer wanted him to.
And these citizens are not military reservists? Are you saying that pretty much no Israeli is a military reservist? Talk about omissions... on you part.
Slashdot Mirror
C: YOU are completely missing the point. Nobody said anything about moral issues. What was said was that people who are saying we can't do this are too narrow minded and short sighted; this is a TECHNICAL issue (notice once again: technical NOT moral). People with a wide field of vision who are visionary recognize that we will eventually overcome the issues of shielding so that comic radiation will not be an issue some time in the future. That is why the meek will indeed inherit the earth. The strong and intelligent will be off inheriting the stars while your descendants are wondering where everyone went.
Hey I bought one. And I can run through mazes ten times faster now.
Are people supposed to get air clearance before launching a balloon that passes through altitudes used by commercial aircraft. Just curious.
Spoken with the religiosity of an atheist.
Oh, and obviously they are showing people what they are doing. They are just saying they don't know the physics/physical mechanism(s) that makes it happen... from critical reading, I believe that means at the atomic level.
You cannot prove the absence of something. Also, if there is relatively little science being done by laymen, it is because of academic snobs such as yourself. I wonder how many discoveries have been missed because people are discouraged from experimenting. BTW, I'm not saying what these guys did actually works or does not work until it is independently verified. However I am not willing to discredit them until the work is independently verified. Go back inside your closed mind now, I'm not interested in hearing from limited, narrow viewpoints. Especially ones that are self imposed.
How much of the science we do today is based on experiments done by people from the 17th century to the early 20th century who had no formal training, and had no clue what really caused the results. I can't remember the name of the French fellow (I believe he was a tax collector) who gave us the conservation of mass rule. He concluded that burning things did not make them disappear but just changed the material into gases and ash etc. However he and no-one had any idea what an atom was/is so couldn't tell you what exactly was happening. Did that make his experimental results any less valid? No.
I really hate academic snobbery. Just because you have a degree or masters or doctorate, doesn't make you smarter than others. I just means you had time and money that some others may not have had. Granted you need to have some intelligence to get these, but it doesn't mean others aren't intelligent too. I think sometimes that having a degree limits some people with their arrogance. I admit that I see this far more in Canada than in the United States (one of the things I like about the U.S.A.). One thing about software I kind of like is how many created this industry we have now, who never received a degree. Four people on this Time Magazine list have backgrounds or worked in some form of science related activity. They were college dropouts.
It would be funny if the naive only buried themselves, but somehow they manage to cover everyone else up with dirt even after they themselves are six feet under.
Now browsers only have to support moving targets.
And on a related note, I thought the U.S. was selling any technology developed directly with government funds (or indirectly through contracts) directly to foreign competitors anyway. Heck didn't GE just sell its best technology to China over dinner at the White House last night. So I don't understand the background checks, unless they want to weed out people who want to see Americans employed making American developed technology.
In the 90s, I worked with a woman whose last name was Jane 'Ericson' (first name is faked, last name is real). Being somewhat conservative, she was horrified when someone pointed out that MS Word had auto corrected her 'signature' to read Jane Erection.
Thank you.
I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing? Who has comprehension problems?
Poke an animal with a stick while it is alive is one thing (even if I don't quite like this analogy). Keep poking and annoying it while it is dying is cruel, and at best in very poor taste.
I always had the understanding that at one time Bulgaria was responsible for much of the viruses and malware being written and distributed. If so that would be a good starting point for, for profit malware etc. (e.g. organized crime). Given a lot of the paranoia going on these days, I find it easy to believe organized crime in that country could afford to pay off some of the authorities to arrest the fellow on some sort of trumped up "cyber-security". I imagine they still have some old rooms used by Soviet era authorities to hold people who didn't toe the line. And along that line, there is still probably some "expertise" around that knows how to make people disappear for long lengths of time, if not forever. This is how I read it. I didn't even have any such thoughts that he might have gone into hiding himself (either I don't think innocently enough or I still have a distrust of governments over there until the old Soviet guard finally die... and I don't trust the new United Secret America as much as I used to either). A knowledgeable person like him, I would think that he could communicate via computer somehow and maintain the secrecy of his physical location.
If you take the point: time = money, then yes I am talking about cost as well as freedom. But not necessarily. If I tell you that I will give you something, but in return you MUST do something for someone else, then you are not giving that something away for free. You are attaching a condition. A condition in this case is a constraint, and a constraint by definition is the opposite of free.
In the case of FSF, you give me something for free, but then tell me I HAVE to give away whatever I work on that uses it. While I think it is a nice, and often good thing to do, by telling me I HAVE to do it is putting a condition/constraint on my using your code. You are forcing me to do something if I use your code. If we were talking in terms of money, you would be forcing me to give you money in return for your product. There is quid pro quo in both scenarios.
I agree with the merits of the FSF and the GPL, but sorely disagree with people running around telling everyone it is 'free' and 'open', regardless of the beer analogies you might use. They are good projects but please, I wish people involved in them would stop trying to dress this up as something more than a form of forced software socialism (and I don't believe that all aspects of socialism are bad, after all, I like communal pooling of resources to pay for police and fire services, public education, etc.). I know GPL people hate to hear this, but I believe that Apache and BSD are far closer to real free and open software than GPL is, as they don't put constraints on the users of their code. Meanwhile, the GPL gets ever more restrictive (e.g. v2 to v3).
Finally I am really bothered by the fact that people here will mod people as a troll if they don't agree that the GPL and the FSF are really free. People who do this are just as bad as the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who can't stand people to disagree with them. Especially when I am right. :p
A fee is a fee by any other name. According to what you say, GPL should take the free out of FSF.
So what part of "you have to give your code away if you use ours" isn't telling you what to do with your own code? I do know a policy of "use our code and do whatever you want with it (including giving away your own code if you want)" is not telling someone what to do. I guess you must like benevolent dictators too. I'll tell you what to do because it is good for you, and I'm nice.
FTFY: "To the FSF, you're more free if you do what we tell you to; to the open source movement, you're more free if we don't mandate what you have to do."
For fucktards who can't figure out a joke: watch southpark.
Yep... Hint: Guitar Queero
Real guitars are for old people.
Yeah. And what if you're into animal cruelty and want to beat your meat?
From the sounds of it, Muglia placed less emphasis on cloud computing than Ballmer wanted him to.
And these citizens are not military reservists? Are you saying that pretty much no Israeli is a military reservist? Talk about omissions... on you part.