Possession is illegal. It's not just a game of "who made the copy". And saying that the data is only copied once, at the sending end, proves that you know little about how computers work.
Reading your post history, I'd guess that you didn't read my post clearly enough and that you think I was defending creationism. Absolutely not. My post is a point-by-point rebuttal of the ridiculous arguments made by the parent poster. Unfortunately, a formatting mistake made it look like they were all my words.
...and that their secondary purpose is social interaction.
Are you serious? What gives you the right to decide what is or isn't the purpose of a cell phone? I think the primary purpose is what almost everyone who has one uses it for the majority of the time, and that's either business or social interaction.
1) Say you're doing something totally fantabulistically amazing. 2) Seduce investors. 3) Do nothing. 4) Do nothing. 5) Do nothing. 6) Do nothing. 7) Do nothing. 8) Spend venture capital on crack and hookers. 9) Do nothing. 10) Declare that instead of doing something totally fantabulistically amazing, you're going to rewrite the same software that dozens of companies already have. 11) Act like this is a simple "desing decision" rather than a total failure of your product. 12) ??? 13) Profit!
Don't take it so hard. Evolution is just the religion these guys follow. I suggest you go look up "religion" in the dictionary.
It's popular with people who don't want to believe they will have to answer to a high power than themselves. What does who it's popular with have anything to do with whether it's true?
Look how seductive it is for them to believe that they are the current culmination of advanced life. Actually, it's Christianity that says humans are something special, not science. Any reasonable scientist will tell you that humans are just another species. But, if by "advanced" you mean "intelligent", we obviously are according to anyone, scientific or religious.
It makes them gods which is ironically what they don't want to believe in Explain how being the "most advanced life form on earth" is equivalent to being a "god".
but don't happen to mind being as long as their little pseudo-science keeps whispering words of comfort to them. Are you serious? Pseudo-science? If you have some sort of valid reason that the theory of evolution is bad science, you should be able to disprove it. I highly suggest that you write this up and have it published in some sort of reputable journal. You should be out celebrating your Nobel prize, not posting on Slashdot.
For more than thirty years they've been studying the programming language but still refuse to recognize the programmer. I have no idea (this isn't rhetoric, I really do have no idea) where you got the number 30 from. Also, I fail to see how anything we're talking about can be held to a valid analogy with programmers and programming languages.
They permit their litte pet theory to flaunt KNOWN laws of physics such as entropy (sorry, sunlight only amounts to random radiation) which HAVE been tested and are continually REPOVEN in new and different ways by every new physics student trying to get a Phd. What are you talking about? Care to expand on this?
I have FAITH that a majority of people who actually believe in evolution are liberal arts majors who want a good excuse to behave irresponsibly or just people who took their Weekly Readers too literally. I'm not even going to bother looking up the number of liberal arts majors and evolution believers in the world to prove you wrong. I suggest you go look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
Gee whizz, I guess since we've only been keeping actual standardized scientific records for over a hundred years we already can speak with authority on what has and has not happened in the last purportedly 4.5 billion. Just because the scientific community didn't actually witness the progress of macroevolution doesn't mean there's no evidence of it now. We weren't here to see the continents united as Pangaea, the ice ages, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
I beg you to look at my responses not from a Christian perspective but from a rational one before you respond. I've tried to be civil and avoid personal attacks and too much sarcasm, and I hope you'll do the same so that we can have a civil, rational discussion.
I agree wholeheartedly. It'd be just as ridiculous if someone tried to say "why shouldn't I be allowed to own this rock of crack? It's just a bunch of atoms hanging in space."
Yes because in more refined languages like French, words like "(la) violence" are not considered nouns... oh wait, yes they are.
Let's try Spanish. Hold on, let me look it up: violence nombre violencia
Oops your argument fails there too. Maybe English is too close to Romance languages to make a good comparison. Let's try something totally off-the-wall:
Swahili: I have no knowledge whatsoever of the language, but a dictionary found with a quick google search gives all these Swahili results for "violence":
Noun, noun, noun, noun, noun, and, let me check that last one, oh yes, noun.
What the fuck was your point again?
For some reason, lots of monolingual Americans claim that English is the "most illogical language", "hardest language to learn", "stupidest language" or some other brand of unsubstantiated subjective nonsense. I literally have no idea why.
By the way, I'll give you a hint so that maybe you'll be less stupid in the future: The definition of "noun" is not dependent on any specific language, and so "violence" in any language that has the word is a noun.
I hate this stupid "linguistic war rhetoric". I'm not a history buff, but I'd be willing to bet that the only reason we speak English is because somebody conquered somebody else somewhere along the way, so what the fuck is your point? And I also know that it's not always the case, because the French conquered England centuries ago and we're not all speaking French (although lots of French did enter our language). Third, it's not as if speaking Arabic or Japanese or German would be the least of our problems in such a situation.
I'm all for self-defense, but not in the silly name of being allowed to speak English.
Any non-use is illegal too. I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, but here it is: Assume that there exists at least one possible way to use GPU to prevent a human from coming to harm. Thus, everyone who doesn't use the software is through inaction allowing a human to come to harm, and is thus in "violation" of this extremely illiterately-worded license (aside: how can someone be in violation of a contract they never agreed to?)
the program and its derivative work will [not]... through inaction permit any human being to be harmed.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Good job tacking science fiction rules to govern robots onto a fucking piece of legalese where it makes no sense.
Because OSS engines haven't had millions of dollars and professional help poured into them? What part of the GP post didn't you understand? Also, because potential developers for such a thing have real jobs and real lives that preclude them from devoting a majority of their time to something they won't make a dime from?
Blah blah blah, where's my OSS game engine, where's my OSS this, where's my OSS that, where's my OSS the other. If you want it so bad then get off your lazy ass and write it.
I didn't concede your point. I said that even if all rednecks are whites, blah blah blah. Add "reading" to "logic" in the things it would service you well to learn. Even if (!) I had conceded that all rednecks are white, how does that automatically make it a racist term? I think you're using some profound definition of racism that less enlightened minds haven't come up with (standard/. sarcasm disclaimer goes here, etc.). By your reasoning the words "white", "black", etc. are "racist".
In other news, I'm white (my name may be "koreaman", but I'm not Korean, it's a long and stupid story...), and I call people "white trash" all the time, and I mean it to be offensive in every way. If you can't figure out why this isn't racist, you haven't been following the thread, or you're brain-dead.
That's why I said "usually". I certainly want to get the bullshit that's happening in Guantanamo Bay abolished. The GGP wants to move in the opposite direction.
You're dumb beyond dumb. You want to make Joe Sixpack Soldier the judge and jury? OK,
1) How do you know they actually had explosives? Maybe Joe Sixpack Soldier (JSS from now on) is just a liar and/or stupid? 2) What if JSS begins to abuse his far-reaching "license to kill"? 3) "Line them up and shoot them dead like they're an enemy soldier." -- No, when captured, enemy soldiers are not "lined up" and "shot dead". They are put in prisoner of war camps and (usually) treated properly under the Geneva Conventians and other relevant international law.
Even if all rednecks are whites, not all whites are rednecks. Fuck, isn't this sort of logical prowess the thing most people are supposed to be born with? Is there some sort of remedial class you can take or something?
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't that be "ce n'est pas un sig"?
Possession is illegal. It's not just a game of "who made the copy". And saying that the data is only copied once, at the sending end, proves that you know little about how computers work.
Reading your post history, I'd guess that you didn't read my post clearly enough and that you think I was defending creationism. Absolutely not. My post is a point-by-point rebuttal of the ridiculous arguments made by the parent poster. Unfortunately, a formatting mistake made it look like they were all my words.
Again, care to point out how I'm wrong instead of vaguely insulting my intelligence?
How the fuck is somebody innocently calling a wrong number "harassment"?
...and that their secondary purpose is social interaction.
Are you serious? What gives you the right to decide what is or isn't the purpose of a cell phone? I think the primary purpose is what almost everyone who has one uses it for the majority of the time, and that's either business or social interaction.
1) Say you're doing something totally fantabulistically amazing.
2) Seduce investors.
3) Do nothing.
4) Do nothing.
5) Do nothing.
6) Do nothing.
7) Do nothing.
8) Spend venture capital on crack and hookers.
9) Do nothing.
10) Declare that instead of doing something totally fantabulistically amazing, you're going to rewrite the same software that dozens of companies already have.
11) Act like this is a simple "desing decision" rather than a total failure of your product.
12) ???
13) Profit!
I wasn't trolling and I hope I'm not incredibly ignorant. Care to point out where I'm wrong?
Don't take it so hard. Evolution is just the religion these guys follow.
I suggest you go look up "religion" in the dictionary.
It's popular with people who don't want to believe they will have to answer to a high power than themselves.
What does who it's popular with have anything to do with whether it's true?
Look how seductive it is for them to believe that they are the current culmination of advanced life.
Actually, it's Christianity that says humans are something special, not science. Any reasonable scientist will tell you that humans are just another species. But, if by "advanced" you mean "intelligent", we obviously are according to anyone, scientific or religious.
It makes them gods which is ironically what they don't want to believe in
Explain how being the "most advanced life form on earth" is equivalent to being a "god".
but don't happen to mind being as long as their little pseudo-science keeps whispering words of comfort to them.
Are you serious? Pseudo-science? If you have some sort of valid reason that the theory of evolution is bad science, you should be able to disprove it. I highly suggest that you write this up and have it published in some sort of reputable journal. You should be out celebrating your Nobel prize, not posting on Slashdot.
For more than thirty years they've been studying the programming language but still refuse to recognize the programmer.
I have no idea (this isn't rhetoric, I really do have no idea) where you got the number 30 from. Also, I fail to see how anything we're talking about can be held to a valid analogy with programmers and programming languages.
They permit their litte pet theory to flaunt KNOWN laws of physics such as entropy (sorry, sunlight only amounts to random radiation) which HAVE been tested and are continually REPOVEN in new and different ways by every new physics student trying to get a Phd.
What are you talking about? Care to expand on this?
I have FAITH that a majority of people who actually believe in evolution are liberal arts majors who want a good excuse to behave irresponsibly or just people who took their Weekly Readers too literally.
I'm not even going to bother looking up the number of liberal arts majors and evolution believers in the world to prove you wrong. I suggest you go look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
Gee whizz, I guess since we've only been keeping actual standardized scientific records for over a hundred years we already can speak with authority on what has and has not happened in the last purportedly 4.5 billion.
Just because the scientific community didn't actually witness the progress of macroevolution doesn't mean there's no evidence of it now. We weren't here to see the continents united as Pangaea, the ice ages, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
I beg you to look at my responses not from a Christian perspective but from a rational one before you respond. I've tried to be civil and avoid personal attacks and too much sarcasm, and I hope you'll do the same so that we can have a civil, rational discussion.
Are you serious?
No, really, are you serious?
Do you have any real reason for saying that most of those languages have a "better" logical structure than English?
I agree wholeheartedly. It'd be just as ridiculous if someone tried to say "why shouldn't I be allowed to own this rock of crack? It's just a bunch of atoms hanging in space."
Let's try Spanish. Hold on, let me look it up: violence nombre violencia
Oops your argument fails there too. Maybe English is too close to Romance languages to make a good comparison. Let's try something totally off-the-wall:
Swahili: I have no knowledge whatsoever of the language, but a dictionary found with a quick google search gives all these Swahili results for "violence":
Noun, noun, noun, noun, noun, and, let me check that last one, oh yes, noun.
What the fuck was your point again?
For some reason, lots of monolingual Americans claim that English is the "most illogical language", "hardest language to learn", "stupidest language" or some other brand of unsubstantiated subjective nonsense. I literally have no idea why.
By the way, I'll give you a hint so that maybe you'll be less stupid in the future: The definition of "noun" is not dependent on any specific language, and so "violence" in any language that has the word is a noun.
I hate this stupid "linguistic war rhetoric". I'm not a history buff, but I'd be willing to bet that the only reason we speak English is because somebody conquered somebody else somewhere along the way, so what the fuck is your point? And I also know that it's not always the case, because the French conquered England centuries ago and we're not all speaking French (although lots of French did enter our language). Third, it's not as if speaking Arabic or Japanese or German would be the least of our problems in such a situation.
I'm all for self-defense, but not in the silly name of being allowed to speak English.
Any non-use is illegal too. I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, but here it is: Assume that there exists at least one possible way to use GPU to prevent a human from coming to harm. Thus, everyone who doesn't use the software is through inaction allowing a human to come to harm, and is thus in "violation" of this extremely illiterately-worded license (aside: how can someone be in violation of a contract they never agreed to?)
What a bunch of fucking brain surgeons.
What the living fuck are you smoking, and where can I get some?
Seriously, did you actually read the article and/or have any idea what you're talking about?
the program and its derivative work will [not] ... through inaction permit any human being to be harmed.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Good job tacking science fiction rules to govern robots onto a fucking piece of legalese where it makes no sense.
"brother" then.
frère
its
Because OSS engines haven't had millions of dollars and professional help poured into them? What part of the GP post didn't you understand? Also, because potential developers for such a thing have real jobs and real lives that preclude them from devoting a majority of their time to something they won't make a dime from?
Blah blah blah, where's my OSS game engine, where's my OSS this, where's my OSS that, where's my OSS the other. If you want it so bad then get off your lazy ass and write it.
I didn't concede your point. I said that even if all rednecks are whites, blah blah blah. Add "reading" to "logic" in the things it would service you well to learn. Even if (!) I had conceded that all rednecks are white, how does that automatically make it a racist term? I think you're using some profound definition of racism that less enlightened minds haven't come up with (standard /. sarcasm disclaimer goes here, etc.). By your reasoning the words "white", "black", etc. are "racist".
In other news, I'm white (my name may be "koreaman", but I'm not Korean, it's a long and stupid story...), and I call people "white trash" all the time, and I mean it to be offensive in every way. If you can't figure out why this isn't racist, you haven't been following the thread, or you're brain-dead.
That's why I said "usually". I certainly want to get the bullshit that's happening in Guantanamo Bay abolished. The GGP wants to move in the opposite direction.
You're dumb beyond dumb. You want to make Joe Sixpack Soldier the judge and jury? OK,
1) How do you know they actually had explosives? Maybe Joe Sixpack Soldier (JSS from now on) is just a liar and/or stupid?
2) What if JSS begins to abuse his far-reaching "license to kill"?
3) "Line them up and shoot them dead like they're an enemy soldier." -- No, when captured, enemy soldiers are not "lined up" and "shot dead". They are put in prisoner of war camps and (usually) treated properly under the Geneva Conventians and other relevant international law.
Even if all rednecks are whites, not all whites are rednecks. Fuck, isn't this sort of logical prowess the thing most people are supposed to be born with? Is there some sort of remedial class you can take or something?
I suggest you go look up the meaning of "catch-22".