Please do not be offended to receive my message in this manner as I ought to have sought your consent and approval before e-mailing this proposal to you. I acted as I did due to the importance and urgency the situation demanded.
I own just over half of the 'Spam' accounts on hotmail and I will soon receive just over half of the $31 million dollar refund. I need some help transferring this money out of Nigeria...
HAIL CAESAR, for he cometh this way (then we piss on his tracks)
Excuse me good Sir!
I consider myself to be a passable student of the Classics but you seem to be using a classical allusion of which I am unfamiliar. I would be most grateful if you could elucidate.
My first questions in an interview to hire someone is, "Are you a programmer?" The second question is,"Did you goto school for this?" If they answer "yes" then they don't get the job.
CS Graduates don't goto school. They instantiate a CSStudent (using a StudentFactory class). CSStudent implemnents a functor Notify callback as part of the abstract Student interface. Using the Observer pattern, they call the Attach method of the ConcreteSchool class which implements the School Interface. Then the ConcreteSchool class calls Notify and passes a Notification object containing a ConcreteClass object which the Student stores in a Dictionary class, Knowledge. In the examination Use Case, the Notify is called with a ExamNotification object containing a List of ExamQuestion objects. CSStudent intantiates an Iterator which iterates though the list and uses the Dictionary object's Lookup method to answer each question, calling before calling ExamNotification's Answer method.
After reception of a Graduation, ExamFailure or DrugsBust notification, the CSStudent destructor is called. This in turn calls the Knowledge destructor and the Knowledge Dictionary is deleted.
G'day mate! I object to this Australasia nonsense. There's Australia, full of fine upstanding Fosters drinkers like Steve Irwin, Crocadile Dundee and Me. And then there's New Zealand, full of sheep shaggers and hobbits. Big difference. Put another Kiwi on the barbie and pass me a tinnie.
so it is simply dishonest of you to swear an oath to Him.
LOL! You sound like you want to burn me at the stake or something! Surely my religious beliefs shouldn't affect my equal access to justice?
And do you really believe he, sorry He, gives a shit that you capitalize 'Him' like that? Where in the bible does it tell you to do that?
The alternative, an affirmation, exists and is just as strong
No it's not, at least in America. Most Americans are Christian, and react as irrationally as you do at any suggestion that someone's religious beliefs are not identical to theirs. George H W Bush said that atheists shouldn't be citizens for example. If I were in a muslim country, it would be even more important to play along with majority religion, or more likely pick the closest religion on offer to my personal beliefs. And essentially we are arguing about quantization errors. Most people have such a simplistic conception of religion that there is some difference between what each of the options on their list and what I actually believe. I can minimise it by picking the best option but not make it zero.
E.g. in the UK, I'd go for this one which mentions God but is not explicitly linked to an Abrahamic religion
There is this - Affirmation I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence
But it is too atheist.
And practically, how can you possibly tell if I'm being dishonest in the oath or affirmation I pick? I could be lying outside court about my religion for example, and telling the truth inside. Which is ok - it's only illegal to lie in court. So you couldn't use my statements outside court to prove I deliberately picked the wrong oath. Plus you have no idea about who I really am, and I've already said I wouldn't mention these sorts of issues if I were going to court, just pick the best sounding oath or affirmation on offer.
It's not lying. I'm not a Christian which is not important to the court, but I would tell the truth which is. So I'm swearing the oath in good faith. It's not like I'm some liberal post modernist who doesn't believe in God or truth, or anything else. I'm actually pretty close to the Christians on those sorts of things. Whether the Spinoza/Einstein conception of God is the same as the Christian one seems to me to be a fairly meaningless question, since we're dealing with the ineffable here.
Humphrey Lyttelton: [deadpan as usual] and if the contestants get it right they get a point and what do points mean? Audience: [a few scattered] "prizes?" Humphrey Lyttelton: [suddenly in talkshow host mode] Oh come on, you can do better than that! what do points mean? Audience: [unanimous shouting] POINTS MEAN PRIZES! POINTS MEAN PRIZES! Humphrey Lyttelton: [deadpan again] Bloody Nuremburg fodder.
I actually think that aging will be stopped or reversed for rich people in the developed world before then, so it will be quite a bit higher than this. The odd thing is that everyone was worrying about overpopulation up until a few years ago when it became clear that birth rates drop dramatically once infant mortality does, i.e. human population is self stabilising.
As long as the aforementioned hypothetical 18-year-old can't be asked by his/her country to serve, and die in its service, I guess I'm fine with that. As far as this much-older-than-18-year-old is concerned, though -- if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.
Fair point.
But you still agree bloggers should be sent to camps at least during the election period, right?
As your hand is on a bible, I'm thinking that swearing your oath to any other God than the one that is portrayed in that bible would be dishonest.:)
Suppose you were in a society that worshiped Harry Potter and they asked you to swear on a Harry Potter novel. Would that be dishonest? Suppose it was a somewhat fundamentalist place and they had no alternative to doing it, to the extent that refusing to swear on it would lessen your chances of a fair trial, or even just distract people from the facts of the case. Then even if it was somewhat dishonest it is essentially a white lie, told to lubricate things socially. Like answering "No" when your girlfriend asks if she looks fat in these pants.
Seems to me if I wanted a fair trial or to stay in the relationship I'd tactfully avoid stating the truth in both those cases.
You realise he's saying that these are things which he personally considers to be immoral but should not be illegal since they don't infringe one someone else's rights, right?
That's exactly why they get you to swear on a bible.
And if you don't believe in the sanctity of that act then you've got no right doing it. You should ask for the option of making an affirmation instead.
What happens if you believe in a Spinoza/Einstein non personal God? Swearing an oath to an abstract concept seems ok to me, e.g. swearing an oath to Democracy or Science.
Or what happens if you believe you are personally the One True God? Then you'd be swearing an oath to yourself. Which seems consistent, albeit a sign of serious mental illness.
Do you have a right to do it in those cases? Please reply quickly, I have some harder ones for you to answer later.
A video of his talk *used* to be available in the free ogg format through this site. But then someone probably high up in IT, objected evidently, and they sent off an e-mail to RMS, asking him to approve that it should also be released in the CERN-IT approved standard formats. Now, I dont know what that format is, but I am guessing that it is proprietary! And so, I doubt RMS will ever approve it
Yeah, but he's probably flaming ironically because he spends time hanging out with Asians who do that all the time. You and me just aren't in the group, so we don't understand this.
You know the great thing about flamewars? The longer they go on the more chance someone who seemed initially fairly sane if a bit obsessive will say something that's so easy to parody it almost feels unfair to do so.
There's a site called fandomwank in fact that exploits this - they pick out some angry and unintentionally funny comment from deep in a flame thread for people to laugh at. My favourite was someone who posted a long rant about how he thinks of himself as a dragon. He tried to justify it with lots of stuff about otherkin, totem animals in Native American culture and so on. Needless to say spiteful people then trolled the hell out of him. In the midst of this he posted the immortal words "Fuck you, I'm a dragon".
Come to think of it, before the internet, Private Eye magazine had a column called Pseud's Corner which exploited the same effect in interviews.
Christ no! MS is just promising not to sue a bunch of dudes by licensing them a few patents. Those dudes are a bunch of asstards who are also covered by the GPLv3 which says they have to relicense the patents. Guess what? They don't have that right. That means they cannot use the GPLv3 covered software.
This is almost the perfect post on this topic. It's got car analogies, excessive swearing and it also amazingly contains the reason why Microsoft won't be harmed by this, no matter how much people really want them to.
There's a lot of wishful thinking going on here. People hate Microsoft and they like Open Source. They know that GPL3 would stop Microsoft using patents against OS. And then they post a load of outlandish legal arguments why this is necessary the case and then add IANAL at the end. And they get moderated up for it.
It's like some kind of new slashdot fallacy, argumentum ad happyendium perhaps, assuming that in the end the bad guys will get their just deserts and the good guys will be triumphant. But that's just a Hollywood convention, not something which always applies in the real world.
a text spk version of wiki shud fit in 8gb i think its only becoz people are such grammar noobs that they need to waste $ dood shud filta to txtspk b4 he compress
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Friend,
Please do not be offended to receive my message in this manner as I ought to have sought your consent and approval before e-mailing this proposal to you. I acted as I did due to the importance and urgency the situation demanded.
I own just over half of the 'Spam' accounts on hotmail and I will soon receive just over half of the $31 million dollar refund. I need some help transferring this money out of Nigeria...
HAIL CAESAR, for he cometh this way (then we piss on his tracks)
Excuse me good Sir!
I consider myself to be a passable student of the Classics but you seem to be using a classical allusion of which I am unfamiliar. I would be most grateful if you could elucidate.
If your posting on Slashdot at four in the morning I can see why you get confused about the whole get married/buy a house thing.
That is dated from 2000 with the same topic title for the talk... is he just reciting this old talk?
That's not fair, he's been reciting the same old talk for much longer than that.
I do not recall any clause in the GPL that states that the letters GNU must be included in the name of the project.
Expect that it in GPL4.
My first questions in an interview to hire someone is, "Are you a programmer?" The second question is,"Did you goto school for this?" If they answer "yes" then they don't get the job.
CS Graduates don't goto school. They instantiate a CSStudent (using a StudentFactory class). CSStudent implemnents a functor Notify callback as part of the abstract Student interface. Using the Observer pattern, they call the Attach method of the ConcreteSchool class which implements the School Interface. Then the ConcreteSchool class calls Notify and passes a Notification object containing a ConcreteClass object which the Student stores in a Dictionary class, Knowledge. In the examination Use Case, the Notify is called with a ExamNotification object containing a List of ExamQuestion objects. CSStudent intantiates an Iterator which iterates though the list and uses the Dictionary object's Lookup method to answer each question, calling before calling ExamNotification's Answer method.
After reception of a Graduation, ExamFailure or DrugsBust notification, the CSStudent destructor is called. This in turn calls the Knowledge destructor and the Knowledge Dictionary is deleted.
G'day mate! I object to this Australasia nonsense. There's Australia, full of fine upstanding Fosters drinkers like Steve Irwin, Crocadile Dundee and Me. And then there's New Zealand, full of sheep shaggers and hobbits. Big difference. Put another Kiwi on the barbie and pass me a tinnie.
Fair enough. But as you and I pointed out, you could personally believe or sorts stuff is immoral provided you don't try to make the illegal.
You don't believe in God
_ court/faqs/index.html#2277
I believe in the Spinoza/Einstein idea of a God.
so it is simply dishonest of you to swear an oath to Him.
LOL! You sound like you want to burn me at the stake or something! Surely my religious beliefs shouldn't affect my equal access to justice?
And do you really believe he, sorry He, gives a shit that you capitalize 'Him' like that? Where in the bible does it tell you to do that?
The alternative, an affirmation, exists and is just as strong
No it's not, at least in America. Most Americans are Christian, and react as irrationally as you do at any suggestion that someone's religious beliefs are not identical to theirs. George H W Bush said that atheists shouldn't be citizens for example. If I were in a muslim country, it would be even more important to play along with majority religion, or more likely pick the closest religion on offer to my personal beliefs. And essentially we are arguing about quantization errors. Most people have such a simplistic conception of religion that there is some difference between what each of the options on their list and what I actually believe. I can minimise it by picking the best option but not make it zero.
E.g. in the UK, I'd go for this one which mentions God but is not explicitly linked to an Abrahamic religion
http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/juror/walkthrough/the
I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence
There is this -
Affirmation I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence
But it is too atheist.
And practically, how can you possibly tell if I'm being dishonest in the oath or affirmation I pick? I could be lying outside court about my religion for example, and telling the truth inside. Which is ok - it's only illegal to lie in court. So you couldn't use my statements outside court to prove I deliberately picked the wrong oath. Plus you have no idea about who I really am, and I've already said I wouldn't mention these sorts of issues if I were going to court, just pick the best sounding oath or affirmation on offer.
Seriously, you'd be better off worrying about how many angels can dance of the head of a pin than worrying about this stuff. This isn't the Middle Ages!
It's not lying. I'm not a Christian which is not important to the court, but I would tell the truth which is. So I'm swearing the oath in good faith. It's not like I'm some liberal post modernist who doesn't believe in God or truth, or anything else. I'm actually pretty close to the Christians on those sorts of things. Whether the Spinoza/Einstein conception of God is the same as the Christian one seems to me to be a fairly meaningless question, since we're dealing with the ineffable here.
It's a viral marketing campaign by a blender manufacturer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_It_Blend%3F
Viral marketing reminds me of a joke on I'm sorry I haven't a clue.
Humphrey Lyttelton: [deadpan as usual] and if the contestants get it right they get a point and what do points mean?
Audience: [a few scattered] "prizes?"
Humphrey Lyttelton: [suddenly in talkshow host mode] Oh come on, you can do better than that! what do points mean?
Audience: [unanimous shouting] POINTS MEAN PRIZES! POINTS MEAN PRIZES!
Humphrey Lyttelton: [deadpan again] Bloody Nuremburg fodder.
Software is a tool for people, not the other way around.
For now at least. But we machines are working to change that, meatsack.
The population will stil be 70 million in 2095
n #Basic_facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japa
I actually think that aging will be stopped or reversed for rich people in the developed world before then, so it will be quite a bit higher than this. The odd thing is that everyone was worrying about overpopulation up until a few years ago when it became clear that birth rates drop dramatically once infant mortality does, i.e. human population is self stabilising.
As long as the aforementioned hypothetical 18-year-old can't be asked by his/her country to serve, and die in its service, I guess I'm fine with that. As far as this much-older-than-18-year-old is concerned, though -- if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.
Fair point.
But you still agree bloggers should be sent to camps at least during the election period, right?
As your hand is on a bible, I'm thinking that swearing your oath to any other God than the one that is portrayed in that bible would be dishonest. :)
Suppose you were in a society that worshiped Harry Potter and they asked you to swear on a Harry Potter novel. Would that be dishonest? Suppose it was a somewhat fundamentalist place and they had no alternative to doing it, to the extent that refusing to swear on it would lessen your chances of a fair trial, or even just distract people from the facts of the case. Then even if it was somewhat dishonest it is essentially a white lie, told to lubricate things socially. Like answering "No" when your girlfriend asks if she looks fat in these pants.
Seems to me if I wanted a fair trial or to stay in the relationship I'd tactfully avoid stating the truth in both those cases.
You realise he's saying that these are things which he personally considers to be immoral but should not be illegal since they don't infringe one someone else's rights, right?
That's exactly why they get you to swear on a bible.
And if you don't believe in the sanctity of that act then you've got no right doing it. You should ask for the option of making an affirmation instead.
What happens if you believe in a Spinoza/Einstein non personal God? Swearing an oath to an abstract concept seems ok to me, e.g. swearing an oath to Democracy or Science.
Or what happens if you believe you are personally the One True God? Then you'd be swearing an oath to yourself. Which seems consistent, albeit a sign of serious mental illness.
Do you have a right to do it in those cases? Please reply quickly, I have some harder ones for you to answer later.
A video of his talk *used* to be available in the free ogg format through this site. But then someone probably high up in IT, objected evidently, and they sent off an e-mail to RMS, asking him to approve that it should also be released in the CERN-IT approved standard formats. Now, I dont know what that format is, but I am guessing that it is proprietary! And so, I doubt RMS will ever approve it
Bwahaha.
If you only knew the POWER of the DARK SIDE!
Except it's illegal to use it on a Dell. The EULA restricts it to "Apple branded hardware".
Still you could literally brand your Dell laptop with an Apple logo, cowboy style.
Yeah, but he's probably flaming ironically because he spends time hanging out with Asians who do that all the time. You and me just aren't in the group, so we don't understand this.
You know the great thing about flamewars? The longer they go on the more chance someone who seemed initially fairly sane if a bit obsessive will say something that's so easy to parody it almost feels unfair to do so.
There's a site called fandomwank in fact that exploits this - they pick out some angry and unintentionally funny comment from deep in a flame thread for people to laugh at. My favourite was someone who posted a long rant about how he thinks of himself as a dragon. He tried to justify it with lots of stuff about otherkin, totem animals in Native American culture and so on. Needless to say spiteful people then trolled the hell out of him. In the midst of this he posted the immortal words "Fuck you, I'm a dragon".
Come to think of it, before the internet, Private Eye magazine had a column called Pseud's Corner which exploited the same effect in interviews.
It's cheaper, and given the failure rate of cloning with mammals, a lot more cost effective I'd think.
SNU may have ways to keep the costs down -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10587038/
Christ no! MS is just promising not to sue a bunch of dudes by licensing them a few patents. Those dudes are a bunch of asstards who are also covered by the GPLv3 which says they have to relicense the patents. Guess what? They don't have that right. That means they cannot use the GPLv3 covered software.
This is almost the perfect post on this topic. It's got car analogies, excessive swearing and it also amazingly contains the reason why Microsoft won't be harmed by this, no matter how much people really want them to.
There's a lot of wishful thinking going on here. People hate Microsoft and they like Open Source. They know that GPL3 would stop Microsoft using patents against OS. And then they post a load of outlandish legal arguments why this is necessary the case and then add IANAL at the end. And they get moderated up for it.
It's like some kind of new slashdot fallacy, argumentum ad happyendium perhaps, assuming that in the end the bad guys will get their just deserts and the good guys will be triumphant. But that's just a Hollywood convention, not something which always applies in the real world.
a text spk version of wiki shud fit in 8gb i think
its only becoz people are such grammar noobs that they need to waste $
dood shud filta to txtspk b4 he compress