A much better way to do something like this, which I think few people would object to, would be to add links to products mentioned in the text of a message in a pannel next to the message. That way a clear seperation would be made between what the original author was saying and the products themselves. Surely this would be just as easy for Deja to set up?
>Most of the methods used to determine that the >Earth is billions of years old have been shown >to be inaccurate and unreliable,
Talk can be very cheap. Name any of the methods used to date the earth that have been proved inaccurate. Such as radioactive dating of rocks by measuring the proportion of radioactives and their decay products? I'd love to hear how that's been proved wrong. How about the eroded volcanic cores in Nevada? Any wind erosion powerfull enough to do that in a few thousand years would have eroded them into domes, not pillars.
There's no way that cataclysms can explain continental crust folding. it would require the earth's mantle to have been hot enough to be plastic as little as 2 or 3 thousdand BC, which doesn't leave enough time for it to cool.
Similraly, there are sits on the net that offer evidence that the universe is very young, but this evidence is rubbish. For example "One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old" But nobody is claiming these star clusters in our galaxy are stable. They're random superpositions in a swirling mass of stars.
"Scientific evidence" like this simply shows how desperate some people can get.
Here's another, while I'm in the mood :
"Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years." But what they fail to point out is that these stars are only in one stage of their evolution. White Dwarfs haven't always been White Dwarfs, for example. They just happen to be in a hot burning stage now.
I've had this argument so many times on Usenet it's nolonger funny. Nobody has put up any credible evidence for a young earth that I've ever seen and I've yet to see a credible challenge to the theories of modern geology.
These guys seem to sell a fair variety of equipment. I had a look at their web site and some of the kit that was siezed had catalogue descriptions like 'Disguised Clock w/audio' and 'Disguised Smoke w/audio'. If it's illegal to sell surveilance equipment deliberately disguised as household objects, then these guys appear to be as guilty as hell. Some of the other kit may have been legitimate, but nevertheless if this supplier was breaking the law with some of their equipment and some other of their equipment could easily be adapted to break the law, then they have little defence.
If they were only selling non-disguised gear then I'd have a lot more sympathy. Nevertheless these laws presumably aren't just designed to protect the public from terrorists and organised crime, but also other members of the public. Surveilance devices are used by companies to monitor staff and spy on competitors.
The World Trade Organisation is getting in the neck simply because the issue of trade is linked in to so many other issues. Environmental damage, employee rights, GM food, food hygiene, all these headline issues are related to international trade.
People like the electorhippies exist to protest on these and other similar issues - that's what they're for. Therefore they will protest whenever and wherever these issues are relevent _regardless_ of whether their protest is helping or hindering the resolution of these problems. They can always claim a moral high groudn for haveing 'done something', however banal that something may have been.
Surely if the global environment is going to be protected, the human rights of child labourers in third world countries are going to be protected, and fair trade and prosperity encouraged agreements made between the nations involved. Simply attacking this process is irresponsible and damaging, to jobs, economies, health, the environment and the aspirations of the weakest countries in the world. The alternative is to leave the most powerfull nations, such as the US and power blocks such as the EU, to carve up the global economy behind closed doors. Is that realy prefferable?
This kind of protest is akin to terrorism, it doen't progress the goals of the perpetrators and in fact galvanises their opponents to resist legitimate lobbying.
The orriginal post taked about using the net to advance freedom. What freedom? The freedom to attack our economies, wreck environmental reform and damage the wider acceptance of human rights? What about the freedom to trade, to work whenre and for whom you want to? The freedom to invest in emerging third world economies and strengthen trade ties between former foes?
Surely communication between the world powers on trade and all it's related issues shoudl be encouraged and supported. Which do you prefer, the WTO or the Cold War?
Perhaps this is a side issue, but are you sure about wanting _no_ export controlls on software? If so, I hear there's a government in North Korea itching to buy some atomic bomb simulation software for their weapons research programme.
We may justifiably complain when our governments are over-zealous, but they don't make these rules purely to screw over Joe Citizen.
I suppose it can't hurt Suse that one of the top dogs on the Xfree86 project happens to work for them. IMHO one of the best ways for companies to support Linux.
So what? Suppose the NSA did demand that Microsoft surrender their keys? This has not appreciable impact on the security of Microsoft's customers whatsoever.
The crypto keys are purely signature keys used to verify the authenticity of crypto modules loaded into NT. They do not provide any access to material encrypted with these modules.
I realy don't know what all the fuss is about. There are enough genuine reasons to dislike MS products without having to invent spurious ones based on a foolish and naive missconception of the technology involved. I just damages the credibility of 'the cause'. (however you define it)
>The notion that SGI is "going out of business" >is certainly valid - the company has dropped key >divisions and has laid off employees. Added to >which, the best people left long ago.
Just as happened to IBM ten years ago, and six years ago, and 3 yeras ago. Obviously signs of a faltering and soo-to-die company. Obviously it can't have naything to do with streamlining operations and concentrating on core competencies.
The same sort of thing has happened at dozens of high profile computer companies at many times in the past and no doubt will do so in the future too.
'The best people' is a purely subjective analysis, which it's hard to refute. but then it's so vage it's hard to take seriously either.
>This isn't flamebait - there is a reason why people pay Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs to >do intelligent research. What you see above sure ain't it.
By customers, you're presumably talking about the people who have paid to use Unisys' intelectual property, or have bought a licensed product. Unisys seems to be serving those customers just fine.
How are they being disadvantaged?
If by 'customers' you mean peoiple who are missapropriating unisis' intelectual property, or using unlicensed and therefore illegal software, this is some new definition of the term 'customer' I've previously not been aware of.
I don't see why a professional software development company wanting to make money out of the software they develop should leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth. They're even prepared to give away hundreds of free licenses for non-profit use. What more can a reasonable person ask?
I agree that pure open source code and public domain standards are prefferable.
What you're saying is that Unisys should ignore infringements of their intelectual property untill the open source community adopts it, then sue their buts into prison when it's worth Unisys's while.
Lovely.
Fortunately unisys has a much more liberal attitude than this.
Slashdot Mirror
A much better way to do something like this, which
I think few people would object to, would be to
add links to products mentioned in the text of a
message in a pannel next to the message. That way
a clear seperation would be made between what the
original author was saying and the products
themselves. Surely this would be just as easy for
Deja to set up?
Simon Hibbs
>Most of the methods used to determine that the
>Earth is billions of years old have been shown
>to be inaccurate and unreliable,
Talk can be very cheap. Name any of the
methods used to date the earth that have been
proved inaccurate. Such as radioactive dating
of rocks by measuring the proportion of
radioactives and their decay products? I'd love
to hear how that's been proved wrong. How about
the eroded volcanic cores in Nevada? Any wind
erosion powerfull enough to do that in a few
thousand years would have eroded them into domes,
not pillars.
There's no way that cataclysms can explain
continental crust folding. it would require the
earth's mantle to have been hot enough to be
plastic as little as 2 or 3 thousdand BC, which
doesn't leave enough time for it to cool.
Similraly, there are sits on the net that offer
evidence that the universe is very young, but
this evidence is rubbish. For example "One type
of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster.
There are many of them; and, within each one, are
billions of stars. Some of these clusters are
moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible
for them to remain together if the universe were
very old" But nobody is claiming these star
clusters in our galaxy are stable. They're random
superpositions in a swirling mass of stars.
"Scientific evidence" like this simply shows how
desperate some people can get.
Here's another, while I'm in the mood :
"Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly
to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000
years." But what they fail to point out is that
these stars are only in one stage of their
evolution. White Dwarfs haven't always been
White Dwarfs, for example. They just happen to
be in a hot burning stage now.
I've had this argument so many times on Usenet
it's nolonger funny. Nobody has put up any
credible evidence for a young earth that I've ever
seen and I've yet to see a credible challenge
to the theories of modern geology.
Simon Hibbs
Now define perfection, in this context.
Simon Hibbs
These guys seem to sell a fair variety of equipment. I had a look at their web site and
some of the kit that was siezed had catalogue descriptions like 'Disguised Clock w/audio'
and 'Disguised Smoke w/audio'. If it's illegal to sell surveilance equipment
deliberately disguised as household objects, then these guys appear to be as guilty
as hell. Some of the other kit may have been legitimate, but nevertheless if this
supplier was breaking the law with some of their equipment and some other of their
equipment could easily be adapted to break the law, then they have little defence.
If they were only selling non-disguised gear then I'd have a lot more sympathy.
Nevertheless these laws presumably aren't just designed to protect the
public from terrorists and organised crime, but also other members of
the public. Surveilance devices are used by companies to monitor staff and
spy on competitors.
Simon Hibbs
The World Trade Organisation is getting in the neck simply
because the issue of trade is linked in to so many other
issues. Environmental damage, employee rights, GM food,
food hygiene, all these headline issues are related to
international trade.
People like the electorhippies exist to protest on these
and other similar issues - that's what they're for.
Therefore they will protest whenever and wherever these
issues are relevent _regardless_ of whether their protest
is helping or hindering the resolution of these problems.
They can always claim a moral high groudn for haveing
'done something', however banal that something may have
been.
Surely if the global environment is going to be protected,
the human rights of child labourers in third world countries
are going to be protected, and fair trade and prosperity
encouraged agreements made between the nations involved.
Simply attacking this process is irresponsible and damaging,
to jobs, economies, health, the environment and the
aspirations of the weakest countries in the world. The
alternative is to leave the most powerfull nations, such
as the US and power blocks such as the EU, to carve up
the global economy behind closed doors. Is that realy
prefferable?
This kind of protest is akin to terrorism, it doen't
progress the goals of the perpetrators and in fact galvanises
their opponents to resist legitimate lobbying.
The orriginal post taked about using the net to advance freedom.
What freedom? The freedom to attack our economies, wreck
environmental reform and damage the wider acceptance of human
rights? What about the freedom to trade, to work whenre and for
whom you want to? The freedom to invest in emerging third world
economies and strengthen trade ties between former foes?
Surely communication between the world powers on trade and all
it's related issues shoudl be encouraged and supported. Which
do you prefer, the WTO or the Cold War?
Simon Hibbs
Perhaps this is a side issue, but are you sure about wanting _no_
export controlls on software? If so, I hear there's a government
in North Korea itching to buy some atomic bomb simulation
software for their weapons research programme.
We may justifiably complain when our governments are over-zealous,
but they don't make these rules purely to screw over Joe Citizen.
Simon Hibbs
I suppose it can't hurt Suse that one of the top
dogs on the Xfree86 project happens to work for
them. IMHO one of the best ways for companies to
support Linux.
Simon
So what? Suppose the NSA did demand that Microsoft
surrender their keys? This has not appreciable
impact on the security of Microsoft's customers
whatsoever.
The crypto keys are purely signature keys used to
verify the authenticity of crypto modules loaded
into NT. They do not provide any access to
material encrypted with these modules.
I realy don't know what all the fuss is about. There
are enough genuine reasons to dislike MS products without having
to invent spurious ones based on a foolish and naive
missconception of the technology involved. I just damages the credibility
of 'the cause'. (however you define it)
Simon Hibbs
>The notion that SGI is "going out of business"
>is certainly valid - the company has dropped key
>divisions and has laid off employees. Added to
>which, the best people left long ago.
Just as happened to IBM ten years ago, and six
years ago, and 3 yeras ago. Obviously signs of
a faltering and soo-to-die company. Obviously
it can't have naything to do with streamlining
operations and concentrating on core competencies.
The same sort of thing has happened at dozens of
high profile computer companies at many times in
the past and no doubt will do so in the future
too.
'The best people' is a purely subjective analysis,
which it's hard to refute. but then it's so vage
it's hard to take seriously either.
>This isn't flamebait - there is a reason why people pay Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs to
>do intelligent research. What you see above sure ain't it.
And your post is?
Simon Hibbs
By customers, you're presumably talking about the people
who have paid to use Unisys' intelectual property, or
have bought a licensed product. Unisys seems to be serving
those customers just fine.
How are they being disadvantaged?
If by 'customers' you mean peoiple who are missapropriating
unisis' intelectual property, or using unlicensed and
therefore illegal software, this is some new definition of the
term 'customer' I've previously not been aware of.
Simon Hibbs
Perhaps. They can certainly sue individuals one at a time,
just as the US DOJ can sue administrators of warez sites -
one at a time.
They've already started.
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho....
Simon Hibbs
I don't see why a professional software development
company wanting to make money out of the software they
develop should leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth.
They're even prepared to give away hundreds of free
licenses for non-profit use. What more can a reasonable
person ask?
I agree that pure open source code and public domain
standards are prefferable.
Simon Hibbs
Surely that's the worst of all possible worlds.
What you're saying is that Unisys should ignore
infringements of their intelectual property untill
the open source community adopts it, then sue
their buts into prison when it's worth Unisys's
while.
Lovely.
Fortunately unisys has a much more liberal
attitude than this.
Simon hibbs
Whan the Dust Puppy plays Quake, how _does_ it
do that *wiggle* thing?......
I just can't get the hang of it
Simon