Haven't you heard? it's burglarize! "Burgle" is such a British word. And you know the British - they owe us for saving them in World War II. That's right, if it wasn't for ground forces at Normandy, the RAF never would've won the Battle of Britain.
Besides, "burgle" makes sense. A burgler...burgles. If we allow our language to make sense, the people might start thinking for themselves.
(OT, but that is an interesting twist on Sapir-Whorf. Has anyone looked into the regularity of languages?)
In the Visual Studio EULA, you cannot redistribute the "Redistributable Code" and the "freely"-licensed sample code in any license that is a "Prohibited License." A Prohibited License is any one that allows other users to modify your code and recompile.
Return results that are: - not filtered by license - free to use or share - free to use or share, even commercially - free to use share or modify - free to use, share or modify, even commercially More info
Objectively morally wrong? No, there is no such thing as objective morality. Subjectively, I have my own personal morality, but 'sin' is a strictly religious concept with connotations that I absolutely do not recognize.
How can this be? Surely you won't mind if I say that because I have such awesome genes, it's my duty to help the species by spreading them, and I go and rape whomever I like, then. After all, it's not morally wrong according to me. (And if you say the babies may not appear or survive or be raised well, perhaps I should kidnap attractive women and keep them as concubines. Anyway, that's what ancient kings did, so it must be okay.)
I can appreciate if you have your own personal ethical code, but you have to be able to say there are certain actions that are wrong for anyone to do.
Original sin is bullshit. I am not responsible for the crimes of my ancestors.
Even ignoring the fact that half of the "catechism" of the Roman Catholic Church is a holdover from exploitative doctrines of the Dark Ages, original sin through Adam, as referenced in the Bible is used in parallel with original forgiveness through Jesus. It allows people to acknowledge the truth that humans are not inherently perfect creatures, and then supposes that this imperfection inherited through Adam. But if this imperfection could inherit to the physical descendants of Adam, then salvation could inherit through the adoptive children of God. Recognizing either original sin or universal eligibility for salvation, without recognizing the other, is incomplete. So no, you are not responsible for the crimes of your ancestors. You ought to be responsible for your inherent sinfulness, but God - who created the concept of sin - has himself absolved you of that responsibility. (Of course you are responsible for your own actual sins, but not for original sin.)
Sin places little or no emphasis on immo[r]al inactions. See the Isaac Asimov short story Little Lost Robot for details as to why this is an extremely bad thing.
I'm not sure why you say that. In the Bible there are plenty of examples of inaction being considered sin. The most obvious is the story of David lusting after Bathsheba, sending her husband Uriah into the forefront of the line, and ordering the commander not to aid him in order that he may be killed. Another is God killing the priest Eli as well as his sons because his sons (though not himself) were godless and desecrating the sacrifices. "I'm bringing judgment on his family for good. He knew what was going on, that his sons were desecrating God's name and God's place, and he did nothing to stop them." (1 Samuel 3:13, The Message translation). If there's a sin of omission, this is the perfect example.
Most Christians hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything in existence. If this is true, then every sin ever committed is a direct foreseeable result of his actions, because he knew exactly what was going to happen with the fruit and the snake before he even bothered breathing life into Adam.
As you said, i'm not going to mention the "eternal mystery" phrase. Even the Presbyterian doctrine of the elect doesn't make much sense to me. (If you're elect, why should you want to do good? Either you will or you won't. And if there's no free will there's no responsibility for sin.) But imagine that you were creating, say, a video game with extremely advanced AI - sentient enough to understand that they are created AIs. Wouldn't you somewhat want them to know of your existence? And if you were so proud of your AIs, would you program them to acknowledge your existence, or hope that they (i.e., the sentient algorithm) would discover you themselves? If they're forced to acknowledge and worship you, then there's no honesty in the worship now, is there?
One example is the itunes DRM. It is not really the least restrictive. There are companies that have DRMless files.
None of those companies carry music by artists signed with the Big 5. (Except perhaps Allofmp3.com and various other services in a legal grey area.) If Apple said that they wanted to start a music store with no DRM, the labels would've said, "FOAD, we're going with Microsoft's WMA. If there's only one legal choice and we're aggressively suing the illegals, not like anyone can do anything about it." It was the only way they could get an iTMS that customers wanted.
If Microsoft and Apple got together and said they wanted no DRM, it might've happened. But Microsoft's not that kind.
If apple were pro-consumer, MacOS X would be opensource and apple would profit from support contracts and hardware sales.
Apple tried the clone licenses once. However it worked for Microsoft, it didn't work for Apple. (Possibly because they didn't pull any of the tricks MS pulled.) When Apple bought back Steve Jobs, one of the first things he did was he terminated the clone licenses. Apple stock went way back up. Much as correlation doesn't imply causation, no smart Apple executive is going to experiment with clone licenses again.
Besides, like the music deal, there are various components that Apple has licensed directly from the originating company instead of looking for an OSS clean-roomed equivalent (take the PDF rendering in Quartz for example, or even the font hinting from Apple themselves). These companies are not going to be willing to open-source their technologies as free pickings for Linux, just because Apple feels like being nice. Perhaps they could do like Microsoft did with Spyglass (IE) and "sell" them for free, but they definitely couldn't go OSS easily.
You are right about one thing, this is the best that Capitalism will ever give us when combined with zero liability, shareholder protection, and paper entities given the rights of humans.
With apologies to Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic model, except for all those other ones we tried (you know, Communism with its proclivity for authoritarianism, mercantilism with the investing bubbles and the exploitation of other companies, feudalism with the inability of people to rise or fall in social status, etc.).
What the fuck is a 14-year kid old doing meeting a 19-year old she met om MySpace? I think she should sue her parents for not beating her enough.
Can the 19-year-old sue the 14-year-old or her family for both enticement (the closest legal concept to seduction) and for defaming his name? After all, if the girl didn't want to run off with the guy, or the family of the girl paid attention to where she was going and with whom, he wouldn't've been about to be prosecuted for statutory.
It's a tough concept to grasp but sometimes money isn't everything. At least Sergey is now realistic about the old "Do no evil" mantra but it's pretty sad to hear effectively, "Yes, we are filtering content for the Chinese government but... " I and I think many others stop when we hear rationalizations. Yeah it's a lot of money but consumers are waking up and paying attention. Google is helping an authoritarian government control its citizens, I don't want to hear rationalizations. Corporations need to start weighing in "ethical capitalism" costs. Sure the profits might be huge now but when you weigh in the ethical costs, those profits aren't so large.
If you think about it not as filtering but providing a good-quality search engine that at least searches some topics, you'll see it differently. I don't think a "rationalization" is quite the term. And I think that Google had as much ethical motivation as financial.
Google is a powerful tool in finding reasonably accurate results. Other than Google, a search engine like China's Baidu may not be as effective in finding information. Also, Google works on a blacklist, so anything that the PRC haven't gotten around to blacklisting is fair game for Google to index and display.
They control the servers, after all - what will stop them from evacuating all their employees from China and putting a holiday Google logo in memoriam of Tiananmen Square next year?:-)
It's an ad that's classified into one of several categories, so that you can actually go looking for used cars or blue sofas instead of just looking at the pretty pictures for something that you may or may not need.
Sole proprietorships... make up a large percentage of businesses...
Widely, publicly held companies... make up most really big businesses, but they certainly aren't most businesses.
...in the same way that Apache is the most popular web server because there are far more hobbyists than large companies.
(I kid, I kid. I know that several large companies use Apache. But if you, say, weighted websites by their Alexa popularity, then the Apache/IIS competion would be a lot closer.)
Step down in favor of!? Okay, fine, you asked for it. Ballmer should abdicate in favor of his son, Ballmer II, lord protector of Microsoft, defender of the closed source. Le roi est morte; vive le roi!
After all, every Evil Empire needs a correspondingly Evil Imperial Dynasty.... after William III left, we need a new succession.
You can donate your old machine to users of MacIntosh, Unix, and Amiga, so they can pick up where they left off before BG ever heard of computers.
*cough* I typed my statement on a MacBook Pro where I use Terminal more than any other app in OS X. If I had to give my machine to Mac and Unix users, I'd have to give it to myself.
And yet I can dual boot Windows XP on it. Yes, I paid extra for a Mac. Yes, I use OS X as my defalt partition. Yes, I voluntarily put Windows XP (a legal copy) on it. Yes, there are thousands like myself. No, we're not all crazy.
There is a big difference between technologically advanced and actually able to get anywhere in the market. If it weren't for the "You want to go here today" attitude of Microsoft, a lot of people wouldn't realize why they wanted a personal computer. This was still the era of "I believe there is a world market for at most 5 computers." (Yes, by the time MS got started, many large companies and universities had mainframes and workstations, but it's still a long way from workstations to home PCs.)
After all, if you can express a program in binary, you can convert that binary string to a number. Just count off that many 0's (like they were tally marks).
I think he's serious. Gates did force a power-hungry company on us - but he forced a power-hungry company that made a profit from popularizing the personal computer. I doubt the PC would be quite as popular today as it is if it weren't for Gates.
How about reading the damned paper before you make an ass out of yourself? Any decent scientist would.
Amen brother. So we're not the only group with very vocal yet very stupid people in our ranks.
Remember that if someone's using an idea to boost themselves, be it a religious doctrine or a scientific theory, it usually means they're not smart enough to accomplish anything by themselves, without the benefit of the ideology. (Yes, this applies to most of the medieval popes. I agree there too.)
However, since they've (reportedly) done a very good job of keeping their biases in check, I will do my best to keep mine in check... just realize that they're not going to suddenly stop believing in invisible men in the sky and I'm not going to suddenly stop believing that they're crazy.
When a good percentage of humanity believes in an invisible man in the sky, you have to admit one of two things. Either a good percentage of humanity is crazy, or believing in an invisible man in the sky is not as crazy as you'd first believe.
The only sin I recognize is opposite over hypotenuse.
Ignoring the fact that the sine is actually a function of real numbers, and the angular definition is a small application of it... does this mean that you do not recognize any action as morally wrong? If you do, then what is a morally-wrong action if it's not sin?
You apparently have not used an ICQ transport on jabber lately.
I use AIM, the IM system with the worst reputation, and yet I avoid spam. The few occasions that I've been hit with real spam come from joining a public chat room where half the chatters are lurking bots harvesting screen names - other than that, almost never.
VoIP is more like the pre-spam IM era than the pre-spam e-mail era. And guess what. We're past the pre-spam IM era and it isn't even close to a problem. I get a spam IM about once every few months, if not rarer, and all it contains is an obfuscated link to some camgirl website or something (I haven't clicked, I'm just guessing).
VoIP, like IM, is a medium that does not lend itself to spam. What can they do, hire telemarketers? You can't very well robot a voice system. And because each system, like IM, is closed within a company, unless that company itself is spamming, they will quickly close down the accounts of anyone who spams because it's easy for them to track.
1) These look like official government security bad-guys. They're supposed to shoot people. If they just bop people on the head, they're not scary enough to be servants of the Antichrist. 2) Yes, the blood does matter. We know this is a game involving violence. But if they simply shatter or collapse, it's not gory and it's quite better than GTA, Doom, Quake, etc., the original comparisons. 3) The game's making the point that no, it's not okay to shoot people because of religion. These are bad guys, as far as I can tell. What kind of covert group of recent Christian converts (after all, if they weren't recent converts, they would've been taken in the rapture) can quickly organize a uniformed armed force with sufficient conventional weaponry?
Is it just me or does that blood look like it's been very amateurly Photoshopped in with the default brush? Eternal Forces has a reasonable 3D engine, so I can't imagine why they'd render blood in 2D.
Amazingly, there's another picture on the same website with exactly the same pose, zoomed out to show the controls, and not a drop of blood. As Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
Slashdot Mirror
need an excuse to spy, burgle and bug citizens
Haven't you heard? it's burglarize! "Burgle" is such a British word. And you know the British - they owe us for saving them in World War II. That's right, if it wasn't for ground forces at Normandy, the RAF never would've won the Battle of Britain.
Besides, "burgle" makes sense. A burgler...burgles. If we allow our language to make sense, the people might start thinking for themselves.
(OT, but that is an interesting twist on Sapir-Whorf. Has anyone looked into the regularity of languages?)
Our trusty sidekick will recover your trusty Sidekick!
In the Visual Studio EULA, you cannot redistribute the "Redistributable Code" and the "freely"-licensed sample code in any license that is a "Prohibited License." A Prohibited License is any one that allows other users to modify your code and recompile.
then if some search engine (Google? please?) would explicitly label Creative Commons results as such
From advanced search:
Return results that are:
- not filtered by license
- free to use or share
- free to use or share, even commercially
- free to use share or modify
- free to use, share or modify, even commercially
More info
How can this be? Surely you won't mind if I say that because I have such awesome genes, it's my duty to help the species by spreading them, and I go and rape whomever I like, then. After all, it's not morally wrong according to me. (And if you say the babies may not appear or survive or be raised well, perhaps I should kidnap attractive women and keep them as concubines. Anyway, that's what ancient kings did, so it must be okay.)
I can appreciate if you have your own personal ethical code, but you have to be able to say there are certain actions that are wrong for anyone to do.
Even ignoring the fact that half of the "catechism" of the Roman Catholic Church is a holdover from exploitative doctrines of the Dark Ages, original sin through Adam, as referenced in the Bible is used in parallel with original forgiveness through Jesus. It allows people to acknowledge the truth that humans are not inherently perfect creatures, and then supposes that this imperfection inherited through Adam. But if this imperfection could inherit to the physical descendants of Adam, then salvation could inherit through the adoptive children of God. Recognizing either original sin or universal eligibility for salvation, without recognizing the other, is incomplete. So no, you are not responsible for the crimes of your ancestors. You ought to be responsible for your inherent sinfulness, but God - who created the concept of sin - has himself absolved you of that responsibility. (Of course you are responsible for your own actual sins, but not for original sin.)
I'm not sure why you say that. In the Bible there are plenty of examples of inaction being considered sin. The most obvious is the story of David lusting after Bathsheba, sending her husband Uriah into the forefront of the line, and ordering the commander not to aid him in order that he may be killed. Another is God killing the priest Eli as well as his sons because his sons (though not himself) were godless and desecrating the sacrifices. "I'm bringing judgment on his family for good. He knew what was going on, that his sons were desecrating God's name and God's place, and he did nothing to stop them." (1 Samuel 3:13, The Message translation). If there's a sin of omission, this is the perfect example.
As you said, i'm not going to mention the "eternal mystery" phrase. Even the Presbyterian doctrine of the elect doesn't make much sense to me. (If you're elect, why should you want to do good? Either you will or you won't. And if there's no free will there's no responsibility for sin.) But imagine that you were creating, say, a video game with extremely advanced AI - sentient enough to understand that they are created AIs. Wouldn't you somewhat want them to know of your existence? And if you were so proud of your AIs, would you program them to acknowledge your existence, or hope that they (i.e., the sentient algorithm) would discover you themselves? If they're forced to acknowledge and worship you, then there's no honesty in the worship now, is there?
You
I asked someone who used those tools. He sed it's rather awkward to build an RDBMS.
One example is the itunes DRM. It is not really the least restrictive. There are companies that have DRMless files.
None of those companies carry music by artists signed with the Big 5. (Except perhaps Allofmp3.com and various other services in a legal grey area.) If Apple said that they wanted to start a music store with no DRM, the labels would've said, "FOAD, we're going with Microsoft's WMA. If there's only one legal choice and we're aggressively suing the illegals, not like anyone can do anything about it." It was the only way they could get an iTMS that customers wanted.
If Microsoft and Apple got together and said they wanted no DRM, it might've happened. But Microsoft's not that kind.
If apple were pro-consumer, MacOS X would be opensource and apple would profit from support contracts and hardware sales.
Apple tried the clone licenses once. However it worked for Microsoft, it didn't work for Apple. (Possibly because they didn't pull any of the tricks MS pulled.) When Apple bought back Steve Jobs, one of the first things he did was he terminated the clone licenses. Apple stock went way back up. Much as correlation doesn't imply causation, no smart Apple executive is going to experiment with clone licenses again.
Besides, like the music deal, there are various components that Apple has licensed directly from the originating company instead of looking for an OSS clean-roomed equivalent (take the PDF rendering in Quartz for example, or even the font hinting from Apple themselves). These companies are not going to be willing to open-source their technologies as free pickings for Linux, just because Apple feels like being nice. Perhaps they could do like Microsoft did with Spyglass (IE) and "sell" them for free, but they definitely couldn't go OSS easily.
You are right about one thing, this is the best that Capitalism will ever give us when combined with zero liability, shareholder protection, and paper entities given the rights of humans.
With apologies to Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic model, except for all those other ones we tried (you know, Communism with its proclivity for authoritarianism, mercantilism with the investing bubbles and the exploitation of other companies, feudalism with the inability of people to rise or fall in social status, etc.).
What the fuck is a 14-year kid old doing meeting a 19-year old she met om MySpace? I think she should sue her parents for not beating her enough.
Can the 19-year-old sue the 14-year-old or her family for both enticement (the closest legal concept to seduction) and for defaming his name? After all, if the girl didn't want to run off with the guy, or the family of the girl paid attention to where she was going and with whom, he wouldn't've been about to be prosecuted for statutory.
If you think about it not as filtering but providing a good-quality search engine that at least searches some topics, you'll see it differently. I don't think a "rationalization" is quite the term. And I think that Google had as much ethical motivation as financial.
Google is a powerful tool in finding reasonably accurate results. Other than Google, a search engine like China's Baidu may not be as effective in finding information. Also, Google works on a blacklist, so anything that the PRC haven't gotten around to blacklisting is fair game for Google to index and display.
They control the servers, after all - what will stop them from evacuating all their employees from China and putting a holiday Google logo in memoriam of Tiananmen Square next year?
It's an ad that's classified into one of several categories, so that you can actually go looking for used cars or blue sofas instead of just looking at the pretty pictures for something that you may or may not need.
(I kid, I kid. I know that several large companies use Apache. But if you, say, weighted websites by their Alexa popularity, then the Apache/IIS competion would be a lot closer.)
Ballmer should step down in favour of Mr T
Step down in favor of!? Okay, fine, you asked for it. Ballmer should abdicate in favor of his son, Ballmer II, lord protector of Microsoft, defender of the closed source. Le roi est morte; vive le roi!
After all, every Evil Empire needs a correspondingly Evil Imperial Dynasty.... after William III left, we need a new succession.
*cough* I typed my statement on a MacBook Pro where I use Terminal more than any other app in OS X. If I had to give my machine to Mac and Unix users, I'd have to give it to myself.
And yet I can dual boot Windows XP on it. Yes, I paid extra for a Mac. Yes, I use OS X as my defalt partition. Yes, I voluntarily put Windows XP (a legal copy) on it. Yes, there are thousands like myself. No, we're not all crazy.
Four-arrows-on-the-ground Hero!
And how did the Lisa sell? Yeah.
There is a big difference between technologically advanced and actually able to get anywhere in the market. If it weren't for the "You want to go here today" attitude of Microsoft, a lot of people wouldn't realize why they wanted a personal computer. This was still the era of "I believe there is a world market for at most 5 computers." (Yes, by the time MS got started, many large companies and universities had mainframes and workstations, but it's still a long way from workstations to home PCs.)
Why not just use pure 0's?
After all, if you can express a program in binary, you can convert that binary string to a number. Just count off that many 0's (like they were tally marks).
I think he's serious. Gates did force a power-hungry company on us - but he forced a power-hungry company that made a profit from popularizing the personal computer. I doubt the PC would be quite as popular today as it is if it weren't for Gates.
Amen brother. So we're not the only group with very vocal yet very stupid people in our ranks.
Remember that if someone's using an idea to boost themselves, be it a religious doctrine or a scientific theory, it usually means they're not smart enough to accomplish anything by themselves, without the benefit of the ideology. (Yes, this applies to most of the medieval popes. I agree there too.)
When a good percentage of humanity believes in an invisible man in the sky, you have to admit one of two things. Either a good percentage of humanity is crazy, or believing in an invisible man in the sky is not as crazy as you'd first believe.
Ignoring the fact that the sine is actually a function of real numbers, and the angular definition is a small application of it... does this mean that you do not recognize any action as morally wrong? If you do, then what is a morally-wrong action if it's not sin?
Or, in other words...the "Christian Right" is neither.
You apparently have not used an ICQ transport on jabber lately.
I use AIM, the IM system with the worst reputation, and yet I avoid spam. The few occasions that I've been hit with real spam come from joining a public chat room where half the chatters are lurking bots harvesting screen names - other than that, almost never.
VoIP is more like the pre-spam IM era than the pre-spam e-mail era. And guess what. We're past the pre-spam IM era and it isn't even close to a problem. I get a spam IM about once every few months, if not rarer, and all it contains is an obfuscated link to some camgirl website or something (I haven't clicked, I'm just guessing).
VoIP, like IM, is a medium that does not lend itself to spam. What can they do, hire telemarketers? You can't very well robot a voice system. And because each system, like IM, is closed within a company, unless that company itself is spamming, they will quickly close down the accounts of anyone who spams because it's easy for them to track.
once Saint Bono gets wind of this.
St. Bono, eh? In terra pax hominibus Bono voluntatis?
1) These look like official government security bad-guys. They're supposed to shoot people. If they just bop people on the head, they're not scary enough to be servants of the Antichrist.
2) Yes, the blood does matter. We know this is a game involving violence. But if they simply shatter or collapse, it's not gory and it's quite better than GTA, Doom, Quake, etc., the original comparisons.
3) The game's making the point that no, it's not okay to shoot people because of religion. These are bad guys, as far as I can tell. What kind of covert group of recent Christian converts (after all, if they weren't recent converts, they would've been taken in the rapture) can quickly organize a uniformed armed force with sufficient conventional weaponry?
Is it just me or does that blood look like it's been very amateurly Photoshopped in with the default brush? Eternal Forces has a reasonable 3D engine, so I can't imagine why they'd render blood in 2D.
Amazingly, there's another picture on the same website with exactly the same pose, zoomed out to show the controls, and not a drop of blood. As Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splainin' to do.