The ucusa criticises people who cherry pick data to support their prejudices but aren't the ucusa just doing the same thing for the other side?
Huh? Your argument is that since not every single piece of research involving government funding has been tampered with by representatives of the administration, there is really no problem?
Muslims are the filthiest animals on earth (literally from the quran, 8:55, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
Thanks for an easy one. Anyone following along should take this as an example of "your game" - the one I referred to originally where you and other extremists deliberately misinterpret scripture in order to rationalize your mental disease.
You claim the quran says literally "Infidels are the filthiest animals on earth" - a phrase which exists in no english translation of the quran at all, not even the most extremist. A prefect example of the way extremists like you take scripture out of context.
[8:54] Such was the case with the people of Pharaoh and others before them. They first rejected the signs of their Lord. Consequently, we annihilated them for their sins. We drowned Pharaoh's people; the wicked were consistently punished.
[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous. Surah 8 Al-Anfaal
So, here we have first an example of how the God of Moses punished the people of Pharaoh - because he broke his promise to the Israelites - and how those rules still apply, furthermore the line you tried to misquote refers to a specific battle with the Banu Qurayza in which the Qurayza were reported to have twice broken agreements of peace with mohammed's group. It clearly isn't racist, nor is it any justification for hatred the way you would have it.
And that is a typical example of why you are just a broken record of extremist hate. Go and bugger off now little hater boy.
Comments on slashdot are "exactly" the same as continuous massacres. Do you seriously believe this ? I could say your comment insults me, therefore justifying me massacring your entire family. After all, "it's exactly the same".
It is interesting that you equate extremism with massacres. Do you think all extremists desire the massacre of your family? Seems like you've given us all a good glimpse of just how fucked in the head you are.
Your comment insults me, for calling attention to the plain ruthless facts. I even point to primary sources.
Do you remember me? I remember you -- you are the OlAyOlAyPrICK. I've posted some fucking ruthless contradictions of your 'facts' in the past. Contradictions from primary sources. You bore me by never learning. Don't expect anyone to play your game once you've shown that you are just a broken record.
I do not blame muslims for everything. I merely state facts.
Extremists like you are exactly the same as muslim extremists. You look for crazy, far-out interpretations of islam in order to justify hating them. They look for the exact same crazy far-out interpretations in order to justify hating you.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of muslims don't give a damn about the batshit crazy stuff either of you come up with because (a) there is always more to the story than you guys are willing to present and (b) its obvious you guys are just grasping at straws to rationalize your own illogical beliefs.
Suicidal people, by the very nature of being suicidal, aren't really in a position to make rational judgements regarding what may or may not happen should they top themselves. Suicidal people have, since time began, justified wilfully idiotic acts with spurious reasoning that only makes sense in their own heads.
That's the "Crazy people are all crazy" argument which fails to note that it isn't back or white, some people are more delusional than others. This ruling has just made it easier for the more rational people to end up in the same way as the less rational.
Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.
Joe pushed his way up to the rope line and yelled to get Obama's attention.
You got a reasonable citation for that? Because from the first day it was widely reported that Obama went to Joe's house as he was canvasing the neighborhood. So, if you expect anyone to believe you, we gotta see some plausible support for your claim.
So what? Free broadcast television has filtering as well, to bring it down to "PG" level, so I don't see what the issue is here. If you want raunchy stuff, you upgrade to pay TV or pay internet that is not censored.
You don't see a problem because you are only looking at the results of the rules rather than the reasons for the rules.
FCC "decency" standards were created because television and radio are passive services - you turn the knob to a channel and then sit back and listen/watch to whatever is broadcast on that channel. It was decided that knowing the programming schedule - after all it is transmitted "out of band" so you can't rely on anyone to have it - was not sufficient to inform users of what kind of programming to expect. So they regulated it, and because television and radio are so passive, it was easy to regulate - just a handful of broadcasters to keep in line.
None of that applies to an internet connection - no one is going to be "surprised" by "raunchy stuff" - if they see it, chances are they were looking for it in the first place. Furthermore, filtering is always going to be ineffective with very high numbers of both false positives and false negatives - none of the current commercially available filtering systems has been able to avoid that.
So, on one hand you have a very narrowly focused and effective "filter" on broadcast radio and television and on the other you have an extremely broad and unnecessary filter on internet usage. The two are alike in name only.
This happens all the time and most of the time we never hear about it.
You would not believe how many times government computers containing critical information have been sold without having their drives wiped or have been lost or stolen.
Which is precisely why no one should trust the government to keep personal information about them private - the kind of personal information that law enforcement and others have been clamoring to collect from the populace at large ever since 9/11 (actually they've been clamoring to collect that kind of stuff forever, the levels were just ratcheted up to unbearable since 9/11).
After all, if the people in government can't be bothered to adequately protect their own personal information, what hope is there that they will protect any information they have about you?
That boy dodged a huge bullet when the repubs lost. If McCain had won, that would have probably been the biggest shotgun wedding in the history of the USA. Marry Bristol, or spend the rest of his life in Gitmo... <insert obvious joke about not being sure which is worse>
Anyone who has been following these developments closely knows that the "helium leak" is just a cover story for the out of control mini black hole they created when they turned it on. Those magnets were shifted when they were finally able to collapse down the black hole, it went out with a massive gravitation burst (measured by seismographs as far away as the USGS Hawaii Volcano Observatory) that damaged a lot more equipment then they are letting on. Now that they know how dangerous it is, I wouldn't count on them ever turning on the Large Hardon Collider again.
Ken makes a big deal about not wanting to name the teacher. But each successive blog post gives away more identifiable details. With just the information he has posted, plus the AISD's own website, it is now possible to narrow her identity down to one of 2 people.
I'm sure that's not news to anyone already determined to figure out her identity, but it ought to be a warning to anyone else trying to both talk about a person and keep their identity secret on the web. It is just a real-life puzzle of connect the dots where seemingly tangential information can be enough to put the entire picture together.
This brings you to the following page (for the US): WTR54G GPL Code Web Page. That page also lists the following FTP site: Cisco/LinkSys Open Source FTP site
So what are the missing that the FSF thinks they need to sue over?
Similar pages for a bunch of other products that also use GPL license code. Cisco doesn't just make WRT54G's you know.
One could try to maintain that those files need to be dual-licensed. However, though some hold that to be valid, I don't believe such a dual license has ever been held up in court.
The GPL has never been held up in US court either. That doesn't mean it isn't valid. If the US legal system were to forbid dual licensing with the GPL, they would end up invalidating millions of other contracts where different customers are sold different rights to the same material - like television syndication rights for example.
Neither is more "free" for the user. Both are distribution licenses and don't cover use.
Both licenses use copyright's restriction on distribution to enforce specific terms. GPL requires distribution of usable source to the user. BSD does not. Since you can't use what you don't have, GPL clearly guarantees more freedom to the end user than BSD.
Big freaking deal. We are back to 1982 - digital music without copy prevention - plus the internet. This is where we would have been over a decade ago if the MPAA hadn't taken the DRM detour.
I guess the guy deserves some credit for not participating in the DRM clusterfuck, but he's still a decade behind where the industry would be if all the cocaine snorting suits running the business weren't a bunch of colossal idiots more intent on putting the internet genie back in the bottle instead of getting their proverbial three wishes and moving the industry into the modern era.
You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.
Stallman is that you? Are you serious?
Are you an asshole? Are you serious?
Stallman wrote:"Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds."
Re:That's what you get... for not using FedEx
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The same has been true with the USPS since 1970. Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services. They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.
How did you ever get modded +5 informative with that load of bull?
We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.
The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.
Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited. ... I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right?/sarcasm
If we didn't have all those laws about getting butthurt to do the thinking for us, then yes you should. Instead the definition of a reasonable person is now "idiot" so no one is expected to apply critical thought to completely unsupported statements.
Her position basically is "I intend to continue sending out poorly thought out, ineffectual bulk messages to all faculty whenever I see fit." In that context, maybe it does become spam...
That's one interpretation. But I wonder where you got it from? All we have is the other side's statement that:
"the student was informed of the proper procedures to follow and flatly refused to obtain proper permissions stating that she would continue to send emails out and demanded that I file charges against her."
No explanation as to why she needs "proper permission" to send a message to the faculty at her school. No explanation as to exactly what the "proper permission" entails nor how long it takes to acquire it, if it can even be acquired by a student.
From the facts presented, I think it is at least as likely that her is position basically is "Short of tracking down each faculty member individually and in person, University policies leave me no other choice but to send a single copy of my well reasoned message via email to each faculty member. Furthermore I believe this to be a moral and just method of communication because it is on topic to the relationship between my student government post and the school's faculty and the university administration has already lead by example by sending multiple email messages on the same topic to all students and faculty."
Slashdot Mirror
No my argument is that both sides are putting a political spin on the research to reflect their prejudices.
That presupposes that all of those individual scientists working on individual projects are a single "side" working in cahoots.
The ucusa criticises people who cherry pick data to support their prejudices but aren't the ucusa just doing the same thing for the other side?
Huh? Your argument is that since not every single piece of research involving government funding has been tampered with by representatives of the administration, there is really no problem?
Muslims are the filthiest animals on earth (literally from the quran, 8:55, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
Thanks for an easy one. Anyone following along should take this as an example of "your game" - the one I referred to originally where you and other extremists deliberately misinterpret scripture in order to rationalize your mental disease.
You claim the quran says literally "Infidels are the filthiest animals on earth" - a phrase which exists in no english translation of the quran at all, not even the most extremist. A prefect example of the way extremists like you take scripture out of context.
[8:54] Such was the case with the people of Pharaoh and others before them. They first rejected the signs of their Lord. Consequently, we annihilated them for their sins. We drowned Pharaoh's people; the wicked were consistently punished.
[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
Surah 8 Al-Anfaal
So, here we have first an example of how the God of Moses punished the people of Pharaoh - because he broke his promise to the Israelites - and how those rules still apply, furthermore the line you tried to misquote refers to a specific battle with the Banu Qurayza in which the Qurayza were reported to have twice broken agreements of peace with mohammed's group. It clearly isn't racist, nor is it any justification for hatred the way you would have it.
And that is a typical example of why you are just a broken record of extremist hate. Go and bugger off now little hater boy.
-It's trolling... check
No, it is more like making light of a very serious problem.
Comments on slashdot are "exactly" the same as continuous massacres. Do you seriously believe this ? I could say your comment insults me, therefore justifying me massacring your entire family. After all, "it's exactly the same".
It is interesting that you equate extremism with massacres. Do you think all extremists desire the massacre of your family? Seems like you've given us all a good glimpse of just how fucked in the head you are.
Your comment insults me, for calling attention to the plain ruthless facts. I even point to primary sources.
Do you remember me? I remember you -- you are the OlAyOlAyPrICK. I've posted some fucking ruthless contradictions of your 'facts' in the past. Contradictions from primary sources. You bore me by never learning. Don't expect anyone to play your game once you've shown that you are just a broken record.
I do not blame muslims for everything. I merely state facts.
Extremists like you are exactly the same as muslim extremists.
You look for crazy, far-out interpretations of islam in order to justify hating them.
They look for the exact same crazy far-out interpretations in order to justify hating you.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of muslims don't give a damn about the batshit crazy stuff either of you come up with because (a) there is always more to the story than you guys are willing to present and (b) its obvious you guys are just grasping at straws to rationalize your own illogical beliefs.
Suicidal people, by the very nature of being suicidal, aren't really in a position to make rational judgements regarding what may or may not happen should they top themselves. Suicidal people have, since time began, justified wilfully idiotic acts with spurious reasoning that only makes sense in their own heads.
That's the "Crazy people are all crazy" argument which fails to note that it isn't back or white, some people are more delusional than others. This ruling has just made it easier for the more rational people to end up in the same way as the less rational.
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut.
True.
Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.
Otherwise though, they are pretty much the same.
Joe pushed his way up to the rope line and yelled to get Obama's attention.
You got a reasonable citation for that? Because from the first day it was widely reported that Obama went to Joe's house as he was canvasing the neighborhood. So, if you expect anyone to believe you, we gotta see some plausible support for your claim.
First, never quote dumbass reporters. They don't know shit.
Versus making it up from whole cloth, eh?
So what? Free broadcast television has filtering as well, to bring it down to "PG" level, so I don't see what the issue is here. If you want raunchy stuff, you upgrade to pay TV or pay internet that is not censored.
You don't see a problem because you are only looking at the results of the rules rather than the reasons for the rules.
FCC "decency" standards were created because television and radio are passive services - you turn the knob to a channel and then sit back and listen/watch to whatever is broadcast on that channel. It was decided that knowing the programming schedule - after all it is transmitted "out of band" so you can't rely on anyone to have it - was not sufficient to inform users of what kind of programming to expect. So they regulated it, and because television and radio are so passive, it was easy to regulate - just a handful of broadcasters to keep in line.
None of that applies to an internet connection - no one is going to be "surprised" by "raunchy stuff" - if they see it, chances are they were looking for it in the first place. Furthermore, filtering is always going to be ineffective with very high numbers of both false positives and false negatives - none of the current commercially available filtering systems has been able to avoid that.
So, on one hand you have a very narrowly focused and effective "filter" on broadcast radio and television and on the other you have an extremely broad and unnecessary filter on internet usage. The two are alike in name only.
This happens all the time and most of the time we never hear about it.
You would not believe how many times government computers containing critical information have been sold without having their drives wiped or have been lost or stolen.
Which is precisely why no one should trust the government to keep personal information about them private - the kind of personal information that law enforcement and others have been clamoring to collect from the populace at large ever since 9/11 (actually they've been clamoring to collect that kind of stuff forever, the levels were just ratcheted up to unbearable since 9/11).
After all, if the people in government can't be bothered to adequately protect their own personal information, what hope is there that they will protect any information they have about you?
That boy dodged a huge bullet when the repubs lost.
If McCain had won, that would have probably been the biggest shotgun wedding in the history of the USA.
Marry Bristol, or spend the rest of his life in Gitmo... <insert obvious joke about not being sure which is worse>
Anyone who has been following these developments closely knows that the "helium leak" is just a cover story for the out of control mini black hole they created when they turned it on. Those magnets were shifted when they were finally able to collapse down the black hole, it went out with a massive gravitation burst (measured by seismographs as far away as the USGS Hawaii Volcano Observatory) that damaged a lot more equipment then they are letting on. Now that they know how dangerous it is, I wouldn't count on them ever turning on the Large Hardon Collider again.
Ken makes a big deal about not wanting to name the teacher.
But each successive blog post gives away more identifiable details.
With just the information he has posted, plus the AISD's own website, it is now possible to narrow her identity down to one of 2 people.
I'm sure that's not news to anyone already determined to figure out her identity, but it ought to be a warning to anyone else trying to both talk about a person and keep their identity secret on the web. It is just a real-life puzzle of connect the dots where seemingly tangential information can be enough to put the entire picture together.
This brings you to the following page (for the US): WTR54G GPL Code Web Page. That page also lists the following FTP site: Cisco/LinkSys Open Source FTP site
So what are the missing that the FSF thinks they need to sue over?
Similar pages for a bunch of other products that also use GPL license code.
Cisco doesn't just make WRT54G's you know.
One could try to maintain that those files need to be dual-licensed. However, though some hold that to be valid, I don't believe such a dual license has ever been held up in court.
The GPL has never been held up in US court either. That doesn't mean it isn't valid. If the US legal system were to forbid dual licensing with the GPL, they would end up invalidating millions of other contracts where different customers are sold different rights to the same material - like television syndication rights for example.
Neither is more "free" for the user. Both are distribution licenses and don't cover use.
Both licenses use copyright's restriction on distribution to enforce specific terms. GPL requires distribution of usable source to the user. BSD does not. Since you can't use what you don't have, GPL clearly guarantees more freedom to the end user than BSD.
Amazon, Walmart and even Apple have been doing DRM free releases of a ton of albums for about a year now.
Big freaking deal. We are back to 1982 - digital music without copy prevention - plus the internet. This is where we would have been over a decade ago if the MPAA hadn't taken the DRM detour.
I guess the guy deserves some credit for not participating in the DRM clusterfuck, but he's still a decade behind where the industry would be if all the cocaine snorting suits running the business weren't a bunch of colossal idiots more intent on putting the internet genie back in the bottle instead of getting their proverbial three wishes and moving the industry into the modern era.
You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.
Stallman is that you? Are you serious?
Are you an asshole? Are you serious?
Stallman wrote: "Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds."
The same has been true with the USPS since 1970. Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services. They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.
How did you ever get modded +5 informative with that load of bull?
The total funding for the Postal Service in the administration's 2005 budget is just over $61.7 million.
Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 $65,135,000
Appropriations, 1999 $100,195,000
etc, etc
We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.
The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.
Nah, not really. Those self same interests have been shining bright for over a decade.
Hate speech, inflammatory speech, screaming fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander... your speech is already limited. /sarcasm
...
I mean, it's the first amendment right? I can say what ever I want with absolutely no repercussions, right?
If we didn't have all those laws about getting butthurt to do the thinking for us, then yes you should. Instead the definition of a reasonable person is now "idiot" so no one is expected to apply critical thought to completely unsupported statements.
Her position basically is "I intend to continue sending out poorly thought out, ineffectual bulk messages to all faculty whenever I see fit." In that context, maybe it does become spam...
That's one interpretation. But I wonder where you got it from? All we have is the other side's statement that:
"the student was informed of the proper procedures to follow and flatly refused to obtain proper permissions stating that she would continue to send emails out and demanded that I file charges against her."
No explanation as to why she needs "proper permission" to send a message to the faculty at her school. No explanation as to exactly what the "proper permission" entails nor how long it takes to acquire it, if it can even be acquired by a student.
From the facts presented, I think it is at least as likely that her is position basically is "Short of tracking down each faculty member individually and in person, University policies leave me no other choice but to send a single copy of my well reasoned message via email to each faculty member. Furthermore I believe this to be a moral and just method of communication because it is on topic to the relationship between my student government post and the school's faculty and the university administration has already lead by example by sending multiple email messages on the same topic to all students and faculty."