Marrying someone who won't work is a choice. Procreating is a choice.
Choices should be made with full cognizance of any consequences, such as increased financial responsibility. If you are not prepared to accept responsibility, you should *not* make the choices that lead to said responsibility. Being unable to accept the consequences of your own actions is not a valid argument for denying the opportunity of actions to others.
(Disclaimer: SCO is smoking crack. I believe none of what I am about to say...)
Actually, SCO has a point. They claim ownership of the code in UNIX derivatives, of which AIX and the rest are examples. The fact that SCO has never seen or handled that code in any way is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible that IBM has infringed on SCO's property by copying code that IBM wrote for AIX/others into Linux. In which case, the only copy that SCO currently has access to is the Linux copy. After all SCO didn't write the code. IBM did. SCO just owns the rights.
I honestly don't get it. A simplistic plot, one-dimensional characters, terrible "effects", poor acting, and grainy, flat-color cinematography( we're talking 1970's film technology ).
I'm just as geeky as the next slashdotter, but could someone please explain to me what is so great about this movie? Movies have improved dramatically over the last 30 years, yet most people here act as if this is god's gift to cinema. Please help.
God forbid that anyone actually be allowed to keep or control the fruits of their labor.
Eliminating any and all incentive to create is an excellent idea. Encouraging theft of others' work is an amazing policy and we should encourage this practice wholesale.
But copyleft does not go far enough. I believe we should criminalize the creative process in the first place. If there is no creation or production, then the evil Capitalists will have nothing to control with their Good Ol' Boy's network, and will lose the means of keeping the po' man down.
Marx would be proud, copyleft supporters. Remember: solidarity will make us strong, but sending millions off to the gulag and starving millions more will only make us stronger.
If you notice, a vasty majority of the NYT-article-containing submissions are posted by michael.
My hypothesis for this is that michael, being socialist/borderline communist himself, likes to give as many eyeballs as possible to the nation's foremost socialism-espousing newspaper.
they should let the average citizen sign up and sell their votes
Selling, buying, or arbitraging votes in a federal election is a VERY VERY serious crime, for which Amazon could be taken to the cleaners if they were to implement your ridiculous idea.
More background on election fraud can be found here.
In parents' basement, masturbating to pin-up posters of Noam Chomsky, unemployed; no money to donate, and mom won't lend any until the trash is taken out.
Socialist Workers?
On strike, picketing their employer because $25/hour isn't enough compensation for putting food items into a bag; no money to donate, and bank won't lend any because it's a racist, misogynistic good ol' boy's club who won't help anybody but The Man himself.
Communist?
Smoking a pipe in his Harvard office, thinking up lies and propaganda to print in the next New York Times op-ed. Has plenty of money to donate, but doesn't want to be seen by his other wealthy colleagues as a moneyed bourgoise.
Clue to aldheorte: Campaign contributions have been a part of the democratic process for about as long as democracy has been around.
I don't see how Amazon facilitating a higher-efficiency method of contributing somehow changes a standard adjunct of democracy into something that is "sick".
now the gathering of what can be defined as public knowledge can be protected by the IP vultures.
The bill says:
(a) INDEPENDENTLY GENERATED OR GATHERED INFORMATION- This Act shall not restrict any person from independently generating or gathering information obtained by means other than extracting it from a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person and making that information available in commerce.
And for the record, neither the submitter nor michael RTFB either, because it's being misrepresented. But this is nothing new for michael.
It's funny how every article posted by michael - no matter who it is attributed to - has the same blithe anti-capitalist anti-american slant. I am so sick of seeing slashdot turned into leftdot
until you see that they are only paying $28 an hour
And you wonder why your positions are being outsourced to India. Sorry, but a few days reading Joe Celko doesn't entitle you with some sort of God-given right to be paid more than $28/hr.
when the hyper-socialist Slashdot editor rages on about monopolies being bad. For the record, he supports the unfettered power of the largest monopoly of all, the Federal Governnment.
God, I'm so worried that the Government is trying to make security more efficient and effective. It is terrible that they're going to make it harder for terrorists to get onto planes!
Here's a bit of advice: If you don't want a white glove and flashlight up your ass, don't support or carry out terrorism. It's really not that difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but the above are choices.
Marrying someone who won't work is a choice.
Procreating is a choice.
Choices should be made with full cognizance of any consequences, such as increased financial responsibility. If you are not prepared to accept responsibility, you should *not* make the choices that lead to said responsibility. Being unable to accept the consequences of your own actions is not a valid argument for denying the opportunity of actions to others.
(Disclaimer: SCO is smoking crack. I believe none of what I am about to say...)
Actually, SCO has a point. They claim ownership of the code in UNIX derivatives, of which AIX and the rest are examples. The fact that SCO has never seen or handled that code in any way is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible that IBM has infringed on SCO's property by copying code that IBM wrote for AIX/others into Linux. In which case, the only copy that SCO currently has access to is the Linux copy. After all SCO didn't write the code. IBM did. SCO just owns the rights.
The space shuttle columbia walks into a bar, sits down, and orders a drink.
The bartender sees columbia looking sullen, and asks "Hey, had a rough day?"
The columbia looks up at the bartnder and sullenly says, "Yeah, I just broke up with my crew."
Must be a very thin book.
Actually, if you count the Beagle, Arianne, and Columbia, this would be:
US +1, EU -2
I honestly don't get it. A simplistic plot, one-dimensional characters, terrible "effects", poor acting, and grainy, flat-color cinematography( we're talking 1970's film technology ).
I'm just as geeky as the next slashdotter, but could someone please explain to me what is so great about this movie? Movies have improved dramatically over the last 30 years, yet most people here act as if this is god's gift to cinema. Please help.
When/where was this incident? Anybody?
This incident happened in 1996.
God forbid that anyone actually be allowed to keep or control the fruits of their labor.
Eliminating any and all incentive to create is an excellent idea. Encouraging theft of others' work is an amazing policy and we should encourage this practice wholesale.
But copyleft does not go far enough. I believe we should criminalize the creative process in the first place. If there is no creation or production, then the evil Capitalists will have nothing to control with their Good Ol' Boy's network, and will lose the means of keeping the po' man down.
Marx would be proud, copyleft supporters. Remember: solidarity will make us strong, but sending millions off to the gulag and starving millions more will only make us stronger.
If you notice, a vasty majority of the NYT-article-containing submissions are posted by michael.
My hypothesis for this is that michael, being socialist/borderline communist himself, likes to give as many eyeballs as possible to the nation's foremost socialism-espousing newspaper.
they should let the average citizen sign up and sell their votes
Selling, buying, or arbitraging votes in a federal election is a VERY VERY serious crime, for which Amazon could be taken to the cleaners if they were to implement your ridiculous idea.
More background on election fraud can be found here.
Where are the other parties?
Green?
In parents' basement, masturbating to pin-up posters of Noam Chomsky, unemployed; no money to donate, and mom won't lend any until the trash is taken out.
Socialist Workers?
On strike, picketing their employer because $25/hour isn't enough compensation for putting food items into a bag; no money to donate, and bank won't lend any because it's a racist, misogynistic good ol' boy's club who won't help anybody but The Man himself.
Communist?
Smoking a pipe in his Harvard office, thinking up lies and propaganda to print in the next New York Times op-ed. Has plenty of money to donate, but doesn't want to be seen by his other wealthy colleagues as a moneyed bourgoise.
Clue to aldheorte: Campaign contributions have been a part of the democratic process for about as long as democracy has been around.
I don't see how Amazon facilitating a higher-efficiency method of contributing somehow changes a standard adjunct of democracy into something that is "sick".
You said:
now the gathering of what can be defined as public knowledge can be protected by the IP vultures.
The bill says:
(a) INDEPENDENTLY GENERATED OR GATHERED INFORMATION- This Act shall not restrict any person from independently generating or gathering information obtained by means other than extracting it from a database generated, gathered, or maintained by another person and making that information available in commerce.
And for the record, neither the submitter nor michael RTFB either, because it's being misrepresented. But this is nothing new for michael.
It's funny how every article posted by michael - no matter who it is attributed to - has the same blithe anti-capitalist anti-american slant. I am so sick of seeing slashdot turned into leftdot
You must be new here.
What are the technical obstacles to Lagrange point colonies?
Keeping CowboyNeal tied down to a single point on the surface.
Allowing him to move around displaces the actual Lagrange points enough to make it unfeasible unless he is kept stationary.
I like that number.
That Microsoft's lawyers sent this notice by email is also odd. That's not any kind of proper legal notification.
From the article:
a 25-page letter and book were Fed-Ex'ed to his house
The *real* notification was sent on paper. The emails leading up to that point were basically informal discovery. There is nothing strange about this.
Noted, but this is something CmdrTaco should have caught in his role as "editor". One other thing to note is the grammatical error in this:
from the to-strange-to-be-real dept.
to != too
But then again, you didn't honestly expect more from Slashdot, did you ?
until you see that they are only paying $28 an hour
And you wonder why your positions are being outsourced to India. Sorry, but a few days reading Joe Celko doesn't entitle you with some sort of God-given right to be paid more than $28/hr.
Oh great, just more technology that will help the imperialist American military kill more innocent civilians.
when the hyper-socialist Slashdot editor rages on about monopolies being bad. For the record, he supports the unfettered power of the largest monopoly of all, the Federal Governnment.
You go, repressive homicidal regime !
How did this make the frontpage of Slashdot? ADHD is a contrived "disorder" invented by psychologist quacks and pharmaceutical marketing geniuses.
ADHD is a formal way of describing a person who is too lazy or stupid to get his/her shit together.
I could say I expected more from Slashdot, but then again, I didn't really, especially after the "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" BS article.
The primary subtitle is "Bigger Disk", which is suspiciously similar to the subject lines of half of the spam I get.
God, I'm so worried that the Government is trying to make security more efficient and effective. It is terrible that they're going to make it harder for terrorists to get onto planes!
Here's a bit of advice: If you don't want a white glove and flashlight up your ass, don't support or carry out terrorism. It's really not that difficult.