To be called "open source", a software MUST have a license approved by OSI.
What is this crap? Do they own a trademark on the term "open source?" No? Then there is no such requirement. I can claim my project is open source if even if my license isn't OSI approved.
(b) According to copyright law, you do require permission to use the software. In that case the statement at the top of the licence: 'This licence governs use of the software' is just stating a legal truth.
Many, many years ago I do believe/. posted an article where a court did rule exactly this. That copying the program from the HD to RAM was in fact making a copy, and thus you needed explicit permission to do so. That's where the EULA came it; it gave you rights to use (make a copy) the program, as well as placing other limits on.
Pointing out crackpots is helping society. We have to, otherwise people may start believing the crackpot. No one points out crackpots soley to goof on them.
We have proof that evolution couldn't have taken place
What scientific proof do you have that evolution could not have happened? Last I checked, scientists were still saying its a valid theory... which would be odd if there was solid evidence against it.
but we have no proof that God couldn't exist.
We have no proof Lucky the Lepurchaun doesn't exist either, so shall we believe in him now too?
I think its fair that if its ok to bash and debunk Scientology that Christanity is fair game too.
I don't see you complaining about Scientology being bashed. I can only assume you think THAT is ok because you are a Christian, otherwise you'd have mentioned that as well.
If I makes you feel better:
Jewish religion is bunk. Christian is bunk. Islam is bunk. Scientology is bunk. Buddism is bunk.
There... did I miss any major religion? Does it make you feel better that I'm not just picking on Christians?
I have several Win2k3 servers, and none of them auto rebooted. They did download and notify that updates were available, which is what they are set to do.
Are you sure AU was disabled and that some ealier SP or patch didn't turn it back on? I don't recall the options for Win2k server, but I'd be very suprised if it was set to not restart and it did. Especially given how long Win2k has been around, you'd think there'd be a KB article if this were an actual bug.
So is it common to call everyone using a certain system fools yet mean that they are only fools if some other condition is met as well? You can't argue that.
Lets think about what using just America would mean. Both continents? No, because if you do mean both, you'll say Americas. How about just North America? That would seem odd that America would always refer to only North America, would it not? Likewise if you insist that America would always refer to South America or Central America.
So America wouldn't refer to one of or the grouping of all the continents. What does that leave? Well, no other country has America in the name of it, so it pretty much leaves the United States of America, doesn't it?
So you can continue to think its handwaiving, but we do have common and defined meanings for words. What the OP did (besides make a bad joke) was change the set of people which the slashdot editor was calling fools, without any indication whatsoever that is what was meant.
Your failure to understand my point is another example of my point. I didn't say "interperate everything literally." I said that we should not change the meaning of what was said. The OP did so (if not taken as a joke) to lessen the harshness of what the editor posted. This some thing is done alot in politics; one might say "welfare is not a good system", and the opponent will twist that to mean "we should let children starve." That was not the original meaning, yet the same kind of thing happens all the time, and the latter is what most people will hear.
You're right about leprechauns.. there is no proof they don't exist.
However, that doesn't mean we ought to believe they DO exist either. Unlike leprechauns though, people ACTUALLY do believe god exists. Yet they'll say believing in leprechauns is silly.
Its the irrationallity of religous people's belief's that are really harmful.
Actually I believe there was a William Wallace. Braveheart is at least based in fact, although not 100% factual.
Anyway, I think that extrodinary claims require extrodianry proof. Its not up to anyone to prove god doesn't exist, its up to those that claim god exists to prove that he does. We don't have any empirical evidence that god exists, and thus we shouldn't believe that one does. Just as its not useful to theorize that some random undiscovered particle exists until we have something that suggests it does.
Even when we are trying to answer a thus far unanswered question, we should attempt to answer the question with the simplest possible answer. God, and the stories about a flood and a son of god dying on a cross but returned from the dead... well.. its a pretty complex explaination for, well who knows what is trying to be explained with that. At best, its a story to try and get people to work together and be nice. Nothing wrong with that, but saying the stories are more than fiction is silly.
Well we have evidence that evolution takes place, but no evidence that god exists. You are rational and believe the first, but irrationally believe the second. Its a contradiction.
Some of the brackets were just expanding pronouns, otheres were not. For instance "in [the United States of] America" I made the assumption you were refferring to the country, USA, and not the Continent, North America. Oh, and prounouns can sometimes be ambiguous as well.
True, usually if the contient is refered to though people will say North America. Its pretty common usage to just use America to mean USA.
You do understand the English language right? There's no doubt that the words in brackets are correct. Those segments are not assumptions, they are part of our grammar. Once you establish a subject, you can refer to the subject as "it, he, she" etc. Using pronouns is not the same as making assumptions, and nothing you added to my post is an assumption, you've merely expanded the pronouns (with the exception of my very first sentence perhaps, but the subject of my rant is explicitly spelled out in the second sentence).
The OP however is speaking on behalf of the editor. Instead of the blanket "everyone on D1 is a chump" (or whatever was said) he's narrowing who the statement is targeted at, without any indication that the editor really did mean to make a blanket statement or not.
Stop with the fake outrage. You have been pretty rude to quite a few others before I even replied to you. How I reply to someone is largely based on their attitude; you talked down to other posters, were arrogant, and worse, ignorant about what you were discussing. I've not seen any apologies or other indication you've seen an error in your posts; then you complain that I am being rude as a cope out. I'm not senselessly rude to people, but I have a low tolerence for crap.
I don't really care how you clasify cell phones. An unfair contract is unfair. Saying don't sign them is just stupid. I'm sorry you can't relate my example of how "go somewhere else" doesn't work, I guess that's another failing on your part.
Instead of posting on slashdot, maybe you should do some research into the law. A contract also has to be mutually benefital to both parties, or its not valid. So really, whats you're point that YOU think that no one needs a cell phone? Its totally irrelvent, and pretty arrogant actually to. I guess we should just go back to having shelter and food, because ANYTHING beyond that could be considered a luxury. Of course, we'd never advance as a race with this attitude. If that's not what you're advocating then stop trying to argue about whether a cell phone is a luxury or not. Its irrelevent.
Hmm, I guess you didn't consider that USB drives may be disabled on controlled computers? Or that even if the poster could do so, he may not want to because it violates company policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain what is unsafe with the MS-Pl or MS-Cl licenses. I'd really, really like to know what YOU think the dangers are.
To be called "open source", a software MUST have a license approved by OSI.
What is this crap? Do they own a trademark on the term "open source?" No? Then there is no such requirement. I can claim my project is open source if even if my license isn't OSI approved.
(b) According to copyright law, you do require permission to use the software. In that case the statement at the top of the licence: 'This licence governs use of the software' is just stating a legal truth.
/. posted an article where a court did rule exactly this. That copying the program from the HD to RAM was in fact making a copy, and thus you needed explicit permission to do so. That's where the EULA came it; it gave you rights to use (make a copy) the program, as well as placing other limits on.
Many, many years ago I do believe
I'm not sure if it was appeled or not.
Damnit, I knew there was one more I forgot ;-)
I don't believe in anything without evidence to show it.
Pointing out crackpots is helping society. We have to, otherwise people may start believing the crackpot. No one points out crackpots soley to goof on them.
We have proof that evolution couldn't have taken place
What scientific proof do you have that evolution could not have happened? Last I checked, scientists were still saying its a valid theory... which would be odd if there was solid evidence against it.
but we have no proof that God couldn't exist.
We have no proof Lucky the Lepurchaun doesn't exist either, so shall we believe in him now too?
I think its fair that if its ok to bash and debunk Scientology that Christanity is fair game too.
I don't see you complaining about Scientology being bashed. I can only assume you think THAT is ok because you are a Christian, otherwise you'd have mentioned that as well.
If I makes you feel better:
Jewish religion is bunk.
Christian is bunk.
Islam is bunk.
Scientology is bunk.
Buddism is bunk.
There... did I miss any major religion? Does it make you feel better that I'm not just picking on Christians?
Right, because you should expect to pay a price when pointing out absurdity.
And Christians aren't crackpots? What makes them better, that their leaders believe too?
It sounds like it was done via employer accounts, which I would typically think falls to the HR department in a company.
Well, just look at Europe.
Hmm... I think I'd rather stab out my ears with a pencil than listen to their 'music.'
Movies have begun doing this as well, in case you hadn't noticed.
I have several Win2k3 servers, and none of them auto rebooted. They did download and notify that updates were available, which is what they are set to do.
Are you sure AU was disabled and that some ealier SP or patch didn't turn it back on? I don't recall the options for Win2k server, but I'd be very suprised if it was set to not restart and it did. Especially given how long Win2k has been around, you'd think there'd be a KB article if this were an actual bug.
So is it common to call everyone using a certain system fools yet mean that they are only fools if some other condition is met as well? You can't argue that.
Lets think about what using just America would mean. Both continents? No, because if you do mean both, you'll say Americas . How about just North America? That would seem odd that America would always refer to only North America, would it not? Likewise if you insist that America would always refer to South America or Central America.
So America wouldn't refer to one of or the grouping of all the continents. What does that leave? Well, no other country has America in the name of it, so it pretty much leaves the United States of America, doesn't it?
So you can continue to think its handwaiving, but we do have common and defined meanings for words. What the OP did (besides make a bad joke) was change the set of people which the slashdot editor was calling fools, without any indication whatsoever that is what was meant.
Your failure to understand my point is another example of my point. I didn't say "interperate everything literally." I said that we should not change the meaning of what was said. The OP did so (if not taken as a joke) to lessen the harshness of what the editor posted. This some thing is done alot in politics; one might say "welfare is not a good system", and the opponent will twist that to mean "we should let children starve." That was not the original meaning, yet the same kind of thing happens all the time, and the latter is what most people will hear.
You're right about leprechauns.. there is no proof they don't exist.
However, that doesn't mean we ought to believe they DO exist either. Unlike leprechauns though, people ACTUALLY do believe god exists. Yet they'll say believing in leprechauns is silly.
Its the irrationallity of religous people's belief's that are really harmful.
Actually I believe there was a William Wallace. Braveheart is at least based in fact, although not 100% factual.
Anyway, I think that extrodinary claims require extrodianry proof. Its not up to anyone to prove god doesn't exist, its up to those that claim god exists to prove that he does. We don't have any empirical evidence that god exists, and thus we shouldn't believe that one does. Just as its not useful to theorize that some random undiscovered particle exists until we have something that suggests it does.
Even when we are trying to answer a thus far unanswered question, we should attempt to answer the question with the simplest possible answer. God, and the stories about a flood and a son of god dying on a cross but returned from the dead... well.. its a pretty complex explaination for, well who knows what is trying to be explained with that. At best, its a story to try and get people to work together and be nice. Nothing wrong with that, but saying the stories are more than fiction is silly.
Well we have evidence that evolution takes place, but no evidence that god exists. You are rational and believe the first, but irrationally believe the second. Its a contradiction.
Some of the brackets were just expanding pronouns, otheres were not. For instance "in [the United States of] America" I made the assumption you were refferring to the country, USA, and not the Continent, North America. Oh, and prounouns can sometimes be ambiguous as well.
:\
True, usually if the contient is refered to though people will say North America. Its pretty common usage to just use America to mean USA.
It was actually a joke
Opps... guess I must have missed it.
You do understand the English language right? There's no doubt that the words in brackets are correct. Those segments are not assumptions, they are part of our grammar. Once you establish a subject, you can refer to the subject as "it, he, she" etc. Using pronouns is not the same as making assumptions, and nothing you added to my post is an assumption, you've merely expanded the pronouns (with the exception of my very first sentence perhaps, but the subject of my rant is explicitly spelled out in the second sentence).
The OP however is speaking on behalf of the editor. Instead of the blanket "everyone on D1 is a chump" (or whatever was said) he's narrowing who the statement is targeted at, without any indication that the editor really did mean to make a blanket statement or not.
I love how / bots are so eager to believe antecode from ACs.
Stop with the fake outrage. You have been pretty rude to quite a few others before I even replied to you. How I reply to someone is largely based on their attitude; you talked down to other posters, were arrogant, and worse, ignorant about what you were discussing. I've not seen any apologies or other indication you've seen an error in your posts; then you complain that I am being rude as a cope out. I'm not senselessly rude to people, but I have a low tolerence for crap.
I don't really care how you clasify cell phones. An unfair contract is unfair. Saying don't sign them is just stupid. I'm sorry you can't relate my example of how "go somewhere else" doesn't work, I guess that's another failing on your part.
Instead of posting on slashdot, maybe you should do some research into the law. A contract also has to be mutually benefital to both parties, or its not valid. So really, whats you're point that YOU think that no one needs a cell phone? Its totally irrelvent, and pretty arrogant actually to. I guess we should just go back to having shelter and food, because ANYTHING beyond that could be considered a luxury. Of course, we'd never advance as a race with this attitude. If that's not what you're advocating then stop trying to argue about whether a cell phone is a luxury or not. Its irrelevent.
Not for me: flat, 0 thershold, -1 to all ACs.
Hmm, I guess you didn't consider that USB drives may be disabled on controlled computers? Or that even if the poster could do so, he may not want to because it violates company policy.