That's actually exactly wrong. The loss of the fetus results in a monetary fine equivalent to property damage. It's only injury to the woman that results in an eye for an eye:
"When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage (to the woman) (ason) ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage (to the woman) ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
You don't think Mendel was a Creationist in the sense that we use that word nowadays, do you? He was a Catholic priest; already by the 1850s the Catholic Church didn't interpret Genesis literally.
If you're talking about the Christian bible when you say 'some book', I don't even think you can use that as a source for the belief that abortion is wrong. The bible is pretty clear that an unborn fetus is not a person.
As long as Apple's actions continue to improve (or at least don't diminish) the user's experience, then F' em. The developers are there to serve the user (as is Apple itself) and having a gatekeeper to ensure that happens is a fine thing.
It may be a walled garden but if it's well tended then that's ok. If you want to live in the jungle you have that as an option elsewhere.
First of all I would say that any sworn official of the government has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and if that person is aware of laws that are being broken and nothing is being done, they absolutely must leak that information to the press.
Secondly, the Whistleblower Protection Act (1989) specifically prevents the punishment of individuals who leak information about a crime, fraud, abuse, or misconduct. So you're not even right that they should be punished.
There is *nothing* democratic about concealing the workings or inner details of our government. It is the very essence of anti-democratic behavior on the part of a government against its people. The fact that we were willing to hold our noses and allow this stench to grow during the cold war was bad enough, but there isn't even that justification anymore.
It's funny that just a short year ago the Slashdot herd was unanimous in its rabid hatred of Flash.
As soon as Apple, one of Slashdot's great Satans, adopts a similar stance the Slashdot herd suddenly is against Apple position and therefore by necessity defending Flash.
If Slashdot had any principles the herd's position wouldn't have changed. But Slashdot has no principles, what it has is cheerleading for underdogs. Flash is perceived in this fight as the underdog. But here's the thing, Adobe is no friend of Slashdot, quite the opposite in fact. Adobe wants nothing less than control of interactive media on the web. Does that sound like it aligns with any of the Slashdot herd's so-called principles?
No company is any more or less moral or opportunistic than any other. Not Microsoft, not Apple, not Adobe. They're all driven by the profit motive. Not even Google, the much beloved of the Slashdot herd, is above this. Google thanks you for your support and then datamines you on behalf of its true customers: advertisers.
And then there's the FSF on Ars Technica calling Apple the pot to Adobe's kettle. Here's the thing, if Apple wins and HTML5 becomes the standard for interactive media on the web, a wild-eyed true believer in the FSF cause would be way, way better off than if Flash ends up winning. Just ask anyone that uses something not quite mainstream enough for Adobe to bother supporting them, like BSD or Linux on PPC.
"Apple would still scream blue murder and harass him with search warrants, but he would not be a criminal."
Apple can't obtain or act on search warrants. Apple can't charge or prosecute anyone for a crime.
The lack of even the most basic knowledge of how our system of justice works is just appalling. Do they put you kids through a civics course in school anymore?
"Either way google wins, 'cos more Android smartphones will be sold either way."
What does Google "win" from this?
I don't mean in the fanboy sense. I mean in the bottom line sense, what does Google get that they wouldn't get from an [iPhone, Blackberry, Nokia] smartphone?
And what of the people that had already paid for reMail? They won't be getting any updates or support for their product. Sucks to be them I guess, but hey as long as we can rationalize that "Do No Evil" thing by adding a parenthetical 'To Anyone We Care About,' it's all good.
Hardball with Apple, lol. As if Microsoft was doing anything other than 'playing hardball' back in the old days when they were Slashdot's favorite bogeyman.
I don't know why it's become an accepted truism that Apple wanted to keep 3rd party developers off the iPhone. There is just no way that the SDK, iTunes, the App Store, and all that infrastructure weren't planned way, way in advance of them becoming available to the public.
The fact that weblets were being pushed as an alternative just indicates that the 3rd party developer story wasn't ready to go when the iPhone itself was.
Just use the platform's native video architecture. Then instead of some poorly optimized software-only codec (on most platforms; it would of course be optimized for Windows), the video would actually look good and perform well.
I don't know what to do about Linux. But I'm not sure why the prevailing attitude is that Mozilla should be completely self contained and try to do everything themselves. Some other project besides Mozilla should be worrying about h.264 for Linux.
Look, I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment. I don't personally own a firearm and truthfully I'd rather have fewer than more guns. But I'm a civil liberties absolutist and I believe that the Bill of Rights should be treated like the crown jewels that they are. All of them, including the 2nd (I just wish that more gun nuts were as concerned with the other nine as they are with their pet amendment.)
But seriously, stop claiming that guns can solve all of our problems. We're a pretty fucking well armed society compared to most other countries so I don't think that it's lack of guns that's leading to all of our other problems.
You're claiming that more guns would save us from the hands of our uncaring, oppressive government and the corporations that own it. If they even bothered to consider the idea they'd laugh. They have guns too you know. And cruise missiles, jet fighters, UAVs, and god knows what else that we don't know about considering the trillions of dollars that have been pumped into "defense." So stop with the macho nonsense that a few shotguns and hunting rifles is all it takes to get back control of our government.
I... think this was answered in the article? The giant companies with state-granted monopolies and huge profits which they extract from certain markets are being told that in order for the gravy train to continue that they'll have to give something back to the community.
So Apple invented a time machine, sent engineers forward in time to copy the Amiga, then went back in time to create the Mac before the Amiga even existed? Wow, that's actually more impressive.
There's a significant difference, which is that blocks can have a life beyond the lexical scope that created them. By calling block_copy you get a block that you own. This is useful for things like GCD that keep queues of blocks to run.
Ebay and Google both 'regulate' their markets. They have TOS agreements, Ebay only allows certain forms of payment, and of course all local, state, and federal laws (i.e. regulation) apply to listings. In other words you can't sell a bottle of wine made in California to a buyer in Virginia at any price.
Black markets are almost always dominated by mafia or crime rings who very much exert non-pricing controls over that market.
That's really the point, any truly 'free' market will rapidly devolve into some other form of exchange system without strong regulatory policing.
They could've built their own syncing app like everyone else, and included support for iTunes. The iTunes library files are just XML. Lots of other apps support it.
None of those things (iTunes, iPod, iPhone) is a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you agree that the monetary fine applies to the fetus and that only injury to the mother results in an eye for an eye etc?
BTW, I didn't choose the translation it's the one given in the wikipedia page I linked to. Hence the quotation marks.
That's actually exactly wrong. The loss of the fetus results in a monetary fine equivalent to property damage. It's only injury to the woman that results in an eye for an eye:
"When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage (to the woman) (ason) ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage (to the woman) ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
You don't think Mendel was a Creationist in the sense that we use that word nowadays, do you? He was a Catholic priest; already by the 1850s the Catholic Church didn't interpret Genesis literally.
If you're talking about the Christian bible when you say 'some book', I don't even think you can use that as a source for the belief that abortion is wrong. The bible is pretty clear that an unborn fetus is not a person.
If your competitor figures out a way to be more efficient without raising his rates, he will win in the marketplace.
That's how markets work. It isn't a good reason to not tax businesses.
.
Free software types are not opposed to for-pay software, at all. The two concepts are not related.
I think it's pretty clear that many are, possibly most.
Good.
As long as Apple's actions continue to improve (or at least don't diminish) the user's experience, then F' em. The developers are there to serve the user (as is Apple itself) and having a gatekeeper to ensure that happens is a fine thing.
It may be a walled garden but if it's well tended then that's ok. If you want to live in the jungle you have that as an option elsewhere.
First of all I would say that any sworn official of the government has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and if that person is aware of laws that are being broken and nothing is being done, they absolutely must leak that information to the press.
Secondly, the Whistleblower Protection Act (1989) specifically prevents the punishment of individuals who leak information about a crime, fraud, abuse, or misconduct. So you're not even right that they should be punished.
There is *nothing* democratic about concealing the workings or inner details of our government. It is the very essence of anti-democratic behavior on the part of a government against its people. The fact that we were willing to hold our noses and allow this stench to grow during the cold war was bad enough, but there isn't even that justification anymore.
... then build one. What's stopping you?
Until then, quit telling others how to conduct their business.
War requires a declaration by Congress. Police are not authorized to wage war on the citizenry. It boggles that this even needs to be stated.
It's funny that just a short year ago the Slashdot herd was unanimous in its rabid hatred of Flash.
As soon as Apple, one of Slashdot's great Satans, adopts a similar stance the Slashdot herd suddenly is against Apple position and therefore by necessity defending Flash.
If Slashdot had any principles the herd's position wouldn't have changed. But Slashdot has no principles, what it has is cheerleading for underdogs. Flash is perceived in this fight as the underdog. But here's the thing, Adobe is no friend of Slashdot, quite the opposite in fact. Adobe wants nothing less than control of interactive media on the web. Does that sound like it aligns with any of the Slashdot herd's so-called principles?
No company is any more or less moral or opportunistic than any other. Not Microsoft, not Apple, not Adobe. They're all driven by the profit motive. Not even Google, the much beloved of the Slashdot herd, is above this. Google thanks you for your support and then datamines you on behalf of its true customers: advertisers.
And then there's the FSF on Ars Technica calling Apple the pot to Adobe's kettle. Here's the thing, if Apple wins and HTML5 becomes the standard for interactive media on the web, a wild-eyed true believer in the FSF cause would be way, way better off than if Flash ends up winning. Just ask anyone that uses something not quite mainstream enough for Adobe to bother supporting them, like BSD or Linux on PPC.
"The fact that people are defending Apple's retarded actions "
What actions have Apple taken? Lodged a complaint with the police? Filed anything with a court? Initiated a civil suit? Even just a public statement?
Is there anything tangible at all to base your speculation on?
"Apple would still scream blue murder and harass him with search warrants, but he would not be a criminal."
Apple can't obtain or act on search warrants. Apple can't charge or prosecute anyone for a crime.
The lack of even the most basic knowledge of how our system of justice works is just appalling. Do they put you kids through a civics course in school anymore?
"Either way google wins, 'cos more Android smartphones will be sold either way."
What does Google "win" from this?
I don't mean in the fanboy sense. I mean in the bottom line sense, what does Google get that they wouldn't get from an [iPhone, Blackberry, Nokia] smartphone?
Microsoft is keeping Flash off of Windows Phone 7. Is WW3 starting yet?
And what of the people that had already paid for reMail? They won't be getting any updates or support for their product. Sucks to be them I guess, but hey as long as we can rationalize that "Do No Evil" thing by adding a parenthetical 'To Anyone We Care About,' it's all good.
Hardball with Apple, lol. As if Microsoft was doing anything other than 'playing hardball' back in the old days when they were Slashdot's favorite bogeyman.
I don't know why it's become an accepted truism that Apple wanted to keep 3rd party developers off the iPhone. There is just no way that the SDK, iTunes, the App Store, and all that infrastructure weren't planned way, way in advance of them becoming available to the public.
The fact that weblets were being pushed as an alternative just indicates that the 3rd party developer story wasn't ready to go when the iPhone itself was.
Just use the platform's native video architecture. Then instead of some poorly optimized software-only codec (on most platforms; it would of course be optimized for Windows), the video would actually look good and perform well.
I don't know what to do about Linux. But I'm not sure why the prevailing attitude is that Mozilla should be completely self contained and try to do everything themselves. Some other project besides Mozilla should be worrying about h.264 for Linux.
Look, I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment. I don't personally own a firearm and truthfully I'd rather have fewer than more guns. But I'm a civil liberties absolutist and I believe that the Bill of Rights should be treated like the crown jewels that they are. All of them, including the 2nd (I just wish that more gun nuts were as concerned with the other nine as they are with their pet amendment.)
But seriously, stop claiming that guns can solve all of our problems. We're a pretty fucking well armed society compared to most other countries so I don't think that it's lack of guns that's leading to all of our other problems.
You're claiming that more guns would save us from the hands of our uncaring, oppressive government and the corporations that own it. If they even bothered to consider the idea they'd laugh. They have guns too you know. And cruise missiles, jet fighters, UAVs, and god knows what else that we don't know about considering the trillions of dollars that have been pumped into "defense." So stop with the macho nonsense that a few shotguns and hunting rifles is all it takes to get back control of our government.
I... think this was answered in the article? The giant companies with state-granted monopolies and huge profits which they extract from certain markets are being told that in order for the gravy train to continue that they'll have to give something back to the community.
How was this not clear to you?
So Apple invented a time machine, sent engineers forward in time to copy the Amiga, then went back in time to create the Mac before the Amiga even existed? Wow, that's actually more impressive.
There's a significant difference, which is that blocks can have a life beyond the lexical scope that created them. By calling block_copy you get a block that you own. This is useful for things like GCD that keep queues of blocks to run.
You'll probably never see this reply, but... no
Ebay and Google both 'regulate' their markets. They have TOS agreements, Ebay only allows certain forms of payment, and of course all local, state, and federal laws (i.e. regulation) apply to listings. In other words you can't sell a bottle of wine made in California to a buyer in Virginia at any price.
Black markets are almost always dominated by mafia or crime rings who very much exert non-pricing controls over that market.
That's really the point, any truly 'free' market will rapidly devolve into some other form of exchange system without strong regulatory policing.
Can you name any real world markets that are 'regulated' solely by the 'price mechanism'?
They could've built their own syncing app like everyone else, and included support for iTunes. The iTunes library files are just XML. Lots of other apps support it.
None of those things (iTunes, iPod, iPhone) is a monopoly.