It's interesting that you have to reach back 800 years to find something you can point the finger at Christians over.
But in this case you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox were thrown out of the shrines of Palestine by the Crusaders, who thought they were the wrong kind of Christian, and the greatest city of Eastern Christianity, Constantinople, was sacked by the 4th Crusade.
But even without these things, I always find it interesting that people like you who say things like this never ask the simple question: how did the Moslems get to own the Holy Land to begin with? (Hint: they weren't invited.)
Your argument "begs the question", that is, it assumes the point under discussion. Your statement that all religious views have equal merit is not at all objective. It's a definite opinion in and of itself; a religious opinion at that since that's the subject to which it relates. As such it is no more provable on its face than any of the religions it seeks to syncretize -- or make equally irrelevant, which works out to the same thing.
You, sir, are confusing your own opinion with the Real Truth, and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry. I could make a better case for bigotry on your own part, since you failed to notice that I did not advocate anything being preached by the website being cited, not even Christianity itself, and instead imputed an opinion to me which I did not express but which you thought you could generalize from the context.
You obviously did not read my reply to Stary, but just to clear things up: It's incorrect to assume that I share the point of view of the website the article's author found so disturbing. I have not seen the actual website, just the quotation from it. To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it. The point, which you would have seen me put more explicitly had you read my earlier reply, is simply that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, which is a foundational assumption for any logically consistent system.
You make another common error when you connect the assertion of the truth of one religion with a denial of the rights of others to exist. This is false. You err further when you associate faith with hatred. That's nothing more than flamebait, which is the tactic of someone who knows very well he's on shaky ground so I'll take point as conceded -- although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him. Your last claim I have already dealt with for the most part. Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality. Why you thought you could pull this off when you provide the link yourself I don't quite understand.
I would think a geek would know better. Two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true. This is fundamental to any consistent system of thought. Islam and Christianity contradict each other. They cannot both be true.
Really, most religions to not employ such unsound reasoning -- Hinduism is the only one that springs to mind that does -- so I do religion a disservice by calling the idea that contradictory statements can both be true a religious idea. But since it springs from the currently fashionable religious syncretism, I can't think of anything else to call it.
You have read an argument into my post that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating the blocking of any sites at all; I was just pointing out that the author of the article had a religious bias of his own. You can do with that what you will.
Willard says in her report that the first time she visited the Global Internet Ministries web site, the lead article on the site was "Have we shamed the face of Jesus? Muslims in our pulpits," and the article drew the following conclusion: "... when we present Islam as another truth, we spit on the face of Christ and those who serve His kingdom in Islamic countries."
This is on its face unremarkable for a Christian website, so I can only deduct that Willard found the statements alarming for some reason. Certainly they're biased, and considering the source we should not be shocked. But what's implied when this material, especially that last quote, is held up as a bad example? It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Are these people so unthoughtful on this subject that they cannot see that this is, in itself, a religious point of view? (I doubt it.) Are they indoctrinating schoolchildren into this religion? (From what I've seen, yes.) Exactly how brazen do you have to be to bray about the fictional "wall of separation between Church and State" supposedly found in the First Amendment, and then go around preaching a religion of your own that for no reason that's ever said aloud seems to be exempt? (An awful lot, but that seems to be characteristic of the Politically Correct crowd.)
Well yes, there is Apple. But I wonder how many new customers they have as opposed to True Believers who adopted the Mac long ago and aren't about to give it up? I strongly suspect, with no data worth mentioning to back it up, that the number of new computer users who choose the Mac is mighty insignificant compared to the number who choose a Wintel machine.
They're just being dim. Some people just don't recognize jokes online unless they're clearly tagged with a:). Maybe we need an RFC for a formal HML (Humor Markup Language).
Um... yeah. As they say in forensic speech, there's "no clash" here. I was explaining why exactly MS's predatory OEM licensing schemes harm the manufacturers of other OSs by making it economically infeasable for the OEMs to sell any other OSs preinstalled.
There was an old tagline for Schlitz beer: "When you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer." To which liquor store owners would frequently retort, "Yeah, but when you're out of Bud, you're out of business." Sure, sell all the brands of beer you want. If you don't have the most popular brand though, you're going to run out of customers sooner or later. Probably sooner.
The question wasn't whether anyone could have sold machines with non-MS OSs; clearly they could because some did. It's rather whether or not you could run a business exclusively selling machines with non-MS OSs. When the basic requirement to sell Windows pre-installed on your machines at all is to purchase a Windows license for every machine you sell regardless of whether or not it's actually installed, and when you're forbidden under the terms of the OEM agreement to sell machines with some other OS installed next to Windows, it simply does not make economic sense to offer more than one pre-installed OS. In that case, which OS are you going to choose? If you don't choose Windows, you're in a situation analagous to that of the liquor store owner who chooses not to sell Bud, but with a vengeance. Instead of locking out 50% of the market (or whatever Budweiser's market share is) you're locking out 99%. That's just foolish. It's a formula for going out of business. If it was a workable buisness model, VA Software would still be VA Linux.
Maybe, just maybe, if you're Dell or HP you have enough muscle to get MS to strike the offending clauses from its standard OEM contract. But for Joe's OEM and Bait Shop around the corner here, it would be impossible. To sell any other OS than Windows would be financial suicide.
I am defining Leech Computing as 'a program running on a client computer without user knowledge that can process data and report back the results, but otherwise does not effect the usability of the client computer and makes no changes to the client'.
If you're trying to sound like an intellectual, you'd best learn the difference between "effect" and "affect".
Re:"Pr0n software for the Apple ]["???
on
Harddrive Speakers
·
· Score: 2
We had the color display hardware, and it was fairly detailed line art taking up the entire screen. 2 images switched back and forth to approximate motion of some kind.
Back in 1982 or so, I remember pr0n software for the Apple ][ that used the floppy drive (O, the irony!) for the sound effects. Same principle: it did it by moving the head (hee-hee!) back and forth.
Fans of the minimalist online comic Triangle and Robert will need to be aware of this, as it's hosted on a mediaone.net account. Patrick will inform his readers of the new URL when he knows it, but you'll need to pay attention to the index page before it happens or you'll wind up with an outdated bookmark and no clue as to where to look.
Let's not take things out of context. The 4th Amendment says "unreasonable searches" (emphasis mine) and those things which are to be protected from unreasonable searches without a warrant are specifically enumerated: "persons, houses, papers, and effects". This is a far cry from some overarching right to privacy. Mostly it just means that the jackbooted thugs have to demonstrate to a magistrate that they have "probable cause" that a search or seizure is necessary to carry out their duties.
Really, this amendment is written in plain English. If the Framers had meant privacy, they'd have been clear about it.
In that case, probably not, but as it's dependent on case and agency law rather than a clear legislated definition, it's forever unclear. It's wise to clarify matters in the contract, in any event.
IMO, the difference between consultant and contractor: "Consultant" is a title, "contractor" describes a relationship. In my office, we've never had a consultant in that wasn't a contractor, but we've also contracted with lots of folks who weren't consultants. In general, when we've contracted with single individuals for their services, they've worked on our premises under our control and could be assigned to any task that fell within the scope of the contract. Obviously, I was in error in assuming that this was the general practise.
If the original poster works like most contract programmers do, he's almost certainly an employee for the purposes of determining whether or not his code belongs to his client as work made for hire. See this circular from the Copyright Office.
This is a fundamentally different situation. The contract in this case is not a license for your clients' use of the software you develop while the contract is in effect, but for your services as a programmer. All rights to your work are therefore owned by your client, not licensed by you to your client, as it was "work made for hire". Work made for hire is a special case under copyright law, and means they'd own all rights even if your contract didn't specifically grant such to them. This isn't a license at all, and certainly not one made after the fact as a EULA on software that comes in a shrink-wrapped box is.
I'm not a lawyer, but since my wife is a freelance writer I have some general awareness of copyright law.
You can sue RMS all you'd like for whatever reason you'd like, but whether or not you'd win is a different question.
Actually, I didn't speak in terms of counties at all. I said (with a typo) "Santa Clara Valley", better known, odiously, as Silicon Valley. Assuming you conflated that with Santa Clara County, which is where my company is indeed located, "one county north" is either San Mateo or Alameda depending on which way around the bay you're going. In neither county are there any defense contractors comparable in size to the one where I work, even reduced as it is since the end of the Cold War. Actually I don't know of any defense contractors in these counties at all, but that doesn't rule out relatively small offices that have escaped my notice.
Unless you're thinking of a Santa Clara County in some state other than California, your map is faulty. Buy a new one.
Not so different if you're only thinking about applications like using them as timecards. My own company, a major Santa Clara Valey defense contractor, only gave them up a little over a year ago, replacing them with an electronic system that looks as if it were designed for Windows 3.1. They waited so long for much the same reason as many of the organizations mentioned in the article did: it was old, but it worked and it's therefore difficult to justify the cost of replacing the entire system.
The cards were prepunched with our employee ID numbers, the building and organization numbers, and a week code. Hours were recorded on the face of the card by handwriting, and were manually keyed in later by payroll staff. (It became very much an art to legibly write your charge numbers and hours around the holes.) Ultimately, I think it was the cost of maintaining a trained group of keypunch operators that only had real work one or two days a week that instigated the changeover.
Of course, it would be hideously impractical to use a punchcard as an ID card. They're just not durable enough to carry around in your walled and still last any length of time. But you're right: conceptually, for that particular application, there's very little difference.
The difference comes in some of the other applications mentioned. Your ID card isn't really a data storage format -- nobody ever considered storing mass amounts of data on stacks of ID cards -- but cards punched with Hollerith codes are both a medium and a format. They can store data, as the article mentioned with the old nuclear test data that's only recently been converted, or they can store code -- Fortran, for example, was designed to be used with punch cards and this is why Fortran IV was so rigid about line lengths, what information goes in what columns, and so forth.
And if you can't get internet access, I'm sorry, but you really shouldn't be a programmer. It's almost like saying you want to learn to play football, but can't be bothered to find a field.
That's just a stupid, ignorant thing to say. Many programmers I know, especially those who were working long before the Internet was widespread commercially, have little use for it at work and even less once they get home. Even now there are whole nations of high average intelligence, with a large number of potentially very talented programmers in them, where Internet access is painfully hard to come by even on the kinds of salaries programmers are paid in those places. (I'm thinking of India specifically, but there may well be other such places.)
And what narrow vision you have, to limit programmers' field to only those applications that are useful online. What ever did programmers do with themselves before 1990, when the Internet became available for home users?
Slashdot Mirror
But in this case you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox were thrown out of the shrines of Palestine by the Crusaders, who thought they were the wrong kind of Christian, and the greatest city of Eastern Christianity, Constantinople, was sacked by the 4th Crusade.
But even without these things, I always find it interesting that people like you who say things like this never ask the simple question: how did the Moslems get to own the Holy Land to begin with? (Hint: they weren't invited.)
You, sir, are confusing your own opinion with the Real Truth, and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry. I could make a better case for bigotry on your own part, since you failed to notice that I did not advocate anything being preached by the website being cited, not even Christianity itself, and instead imputed an opinion to me which I did not express but which you thought you could generalize from the context.
You obviously did not read my reply to Stary, but just to clear things up: It's incorrect to assume that I share the point of view of the website the article's author found so disturbing. I have not seen the actual website, just the quotation from it. To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it. The point, which you would have seen me put more explicitly had you read my earlier reply, is simply that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, which is a foundational assumption for any logically consistent system.
You make another common error when you connect the assertion of the truth of one religion with a denial of the rights of others to exist. This is false. You err further when you associate faith with hatred. That's nothing more than flamebait, which is the tactic of someone who knows very well he's on shaky ground so I'll take point as conceded -- although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him. Your last claim I have already dealt with for the most part. Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality. Why you thought you could pull this off when you provide the link yourself I don't quite understand.
Really, most religions to not employ such unsound reasoning -- Hinduism is the only one that springs to mind that does -- so I do religion a disservice by calling the idea that contradictory statements can both be true a religious idea. But since it springs from the currently fashionable religious syncretism, I can't think of anything else to call it.
You have read an argument into my post that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating the blocking of any sites at all; I was just pointing out that the author of the article had a religious bias of his own. You can do with that what you will.
Willard says in her report that the first time she visited the Global Internet Ministries web site, the lead article on the site was "Have we shamed the face of Jesus? Muslims in our pulpits," and the article drew the following conclusion: "... when we present Islam as another truth, we spit on the face of Christ and those who serve His kingdom in Islamic countries."
This is on its face unremarkable for a Christian website, so I can only deduct that Willard found the statements alarming for some reason. Certainly they're biased, and considering the source we should not be shocked. But what's implied when this material, especially that last quote, is held up as a bad example? It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Are these people so unthoughtful on this subject that they cannot see that this is, in itself, a religious point of view? (I doubt it.) Are they indoctrinating schoolchildren into this religion? (From what I've seen, yes.) Exactly how brazen do you have to be to bray about the fictional "wall of separation between Church and State" supposedly found in the First Amendment, and then go around preaching a religion of your own that for no reason that's ever said aloud seems to be exempt? (An awful lot, but that seems to be characteristic of the Politically Correct crowd.)
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
Try this!
Sheesh, don't the editors read /. themselves?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/17/131721 8&mode=thread
Well yes, there is Apple. But I wonder how many new customers they have as opposed to True Believers who adopted the Mac long ago and aren't about to give it up? I strongly suspect, with no data worth mentioning to back it up, that the number of new computer users who choose the Mac is mighty insignificant compared to the number who choose a Wintel machine.
I was just being nitpicky in what I had hoped was a silly way. I'm glad you took it in the right spirit.
They're just being dim. Some people just don't recognize jokes online unless they're clearly tagged with a :). Maybe we need an RFC for a formal HML (Humor Markup Language).
Or were you referring to the parent?
The question wasn't whether anyone could have sold machines with non-MS OSs; clearly they could because some did. It's rather whether or not you could run a business exclusively selling machines with non-MS OSs. When the basic requirement to sell Windows pre-installed on your machines at all is to purchase a Windows license for every machine you sell regardless of whether or not it's actually installed, and when you're forbidden under the terms of the OEM agreement to sell machines with some other OS installed next to Windows, it simply does not make economic sense to offer more than one pre-installed OS. In that case, which OS are you going to choose? If you don't choose Windows, you're in a situation analagous to that of the liquor store owner who chooses not to sell Bud, but with a vengeance. Instead of locking out 50% of the market (or whatever Budweiser's market share is) you're locking out 99%. That's just foolish. It's a formula for going out of business. If it was a workable buisness model, VA Software would still be VA Linux.
Maybe, just maybe, if you're Dell or HP you have enough muscle to get MS to strike the offending clauses from its standard OEM contract. But for Joe's OEM and Bait Shop around the corner here, it would be impossible. To sell any other OS than Windows would be financial suicide.
At least they won't have any problem demonstrating irreparable harm.
If you're trying to sound like an intellectual, you'd best learn the difference between "effect" and "affect".
The "GRONK GRONK GRONK" part was spot on, though.
Back in 1982 or so, I remember pr0n software for the Apple ][ that used the floppy drive (O, the irony!) for the sound effects. Same principle: it did it by moving the head (hee-hee!) back and forth.
Fans of the minimalist online comic Triangle and Robert will need to be aware of this, as it's hosted on a mediaone.net account. Patrick will inform his readers of the new URL when he knows it, but you'll need to pay attention to the index page before it happens or you'll wind up with an outdated bookmark and no clue as to where to look.
Let's not take things out of context. The 4th Amendment says "unreasonable searches" (emphasis mine) and those things which are to be protected from unreasonable searches without a warrant are specifically enumerated: "persons, houses, papers, and effects". This is a far cry from some overarching right to privacy. Mostly it just means that the jackbooted thugs have to demonstrate to a magistrate that they have "probable cause" that a search or seizure is necessary to carry out their duties.
Really, this amendment is written in plain English. If the Framers had meant privacy, they'd have been clear about it.
Um, that's all.....
Only if he was asking Slashdot to marry him...
IMO, the difference between consultant and contractor: "Consultant" is a title, "contractor" describes a relationship. In my office, we've never had a consultant in that wasn't a contractor, but we've also contracted with lots of folks who weren't consultants. In general, when we've contracted with single individuals for their services, they've worked on our premises under our control and could be assigned to any task that fell within the scope of the contract. Obviously, I was in error in assuming that this was the general practise.
If the original poster works like most contract programmers do, he's almost certainly an employee for the purposes of determining whether or not his code belongs to his client as work made for hire. See this circular from the Copyright Office.
I'm not a lawyer, but since my wife is a freelance writer I have some general awareness of copyright law.
You can sue RMS all you'd like for whatever reason you'd like, but whether or not you'd win is a different question.
Unless you're thinking of a Santa Clara County in some state other than California, your map is faulty. Buy a new one.
The cards were prepunched with our employee ID numbers, the building and organization numbers, and a week code. Hours were recorded on the face of the card by handwriting, and were manually keyed in later by payroll staff. (It became very much an art to legibly write your charge numbers and hours around the holes.) Ultimately, I think it was the cost of maintaining a trained group of keypunch operators that only had real work one or two days a week that instigated the changeover.
Of course, it would be hideously impractical to use a punchcard as an ID card. They're just not durable enough to carry around in your walled and still last any length of time. But you're right: conceptually, for that particular application, there's very little difference.
The difference comes in some of the other applications mentioned. Your ID card isn't really a data storage format -- nobody ever considered storing mass amounts of data on stacks of ID cards -- but cards punched with Hollerith codes are both a medium and a format. They can store data, as the article mentioned with the old nuclear test data that's only recently been converted, or they can store code -- Fortran, for example, was designed to be used with punch cards and this is why Fortran IV was so rigid about line lengths, what information goes in what columns, and so forth.
That's just a stupid, ignorant thing to say. Many programmers I know, especially those who were working long before the Internet was widespread commercially, have little use for it at work and even less once they get home. Even now there are whole nations of high average intelligence, with a large number of potentially very talented programmers in them, where Internet access is painfully hard to come by even on the kinds of salaries programmers are paid in those places. (I'm thinking of India specifically, but there may well be other such places.)
And what narrow vision you have, to limit programmers' field to only those applications that are useful online. What ever did programmers do with themselves before 1990, when the Internet became available for home users?