I bet none of the terrorists ever played Quake. Of course, those who promote the idea that video games make people violent would claim that that is irrelevant.
I know a lot of people would be nervous about entering them again, but I think it would be a huge victory for the U.S. if the WTC were to be rebuilt and looked the same as it used to. Think of the moral boost it would bring, "Ha, you stupid terrorists, we're back!" Well, maybe something more inspirational than that.
Anyway, it would also allow us to preserve our history, both in our hearts and in our "visual arts". People will be able to look at images of the WTC without being so despondent.
Of course, the new WTC should be designed to handle a similar attack, and should have better escape routes, but otherwise it should look the same.
Unfortunately, most people wouldn't recognize the skin as just bin Ladin. Instead, they would think it was a regular Arab, and that will just exacerbate the problem of ignorant Americans thinking all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists.
You really need to think hardware before you say such things.
You shouldn't allow him to use your network. If he abuses it, you will be held liable. If you try to prove that he did it, your DSL provider will then remind you that you're not supposed to share your access with outsiders. Either way, you're screwed.
802.11 is bad idea in an apartment complex.
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
But the fact reamains that Islam does have a call to arms in its theology and Christianity does not.
This call-to-arms is a defensive measure. It's only supposed to be used when defending against invaders. Some fanaticals, like the Taliban, think that the mere influence of non-Muslims is an attack. These people are obviously deluded and no different from the power-hungry "Christians" who commanded the Crusades. The point that I and other Muslims are trying to get across is that so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" (I really hate that term) are exactly like the Christians who fought in the Crusades. One day I hope that their kind will be eliminated, and the rest of the world will see the true Islam.
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Islam allows for violence against its opponents and Christianity does not.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
The current Palestenian terrorism was all sparked by an Israeli official visiting a Holy site, holy to both Jewdaism and Islam.
And then said, "Hey, this would be a great place for a Jewish temple!" (paraphrased from reports I heard at the time). Apparently, there was only a mosque there.
But I agree, the Palestinians are just too volatile.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
but you still have to prevent passengers from bringing on things that can get through walls (explosive, or otherwise)
Just make the walls thick enough so that any explosive force that can take out the wall will also destroy the plane. And make sure it's obvious that this will happen.
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Killing terrorists in retaliation won't work - they've already demonstrated they're not afraid of death
You don't kill terrorists to punish them, you kill them to get rid of them! The more terrorists you kill, the less terrorism there will be. Duh!
Of course, the hard part is killing only the terrorists and sparing the innocent victims of Mid-East strife.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
it was hard to think anything but "nuke the middle east back into stone age"
Hard for you, maybe, but not for the 7+ million Muslims in the United States who condemn this attack just like everyone else. No, these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."
Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is something truly wrong with our Mid-East policy? Do you really think that killing more Palestinians, even those who are innocent, will solve this problem? There are Palestinian families who were living there long before the state of Israel was created. All they want to do is live in peace, but for some reason, the West keeps sending money and weapons to Israel, and the Israelis keep using the money and weapons to kill Palestinians. Did you know that for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, there are about 10 Palestinians killed by Israelis?
Right now, most of the Arab countries are our friends. If we were to step up our funding of the Israeli terrorism (yes, that's what it is) of Palestinians, then the entire Arab world would turn against us. If you thought the WTC attack was bad, that's nothing. Right after they cut off our oil supply, the Arabs would send thousands of suicide bombers our way.
Remember all the Native Americans who retaliated against the "settlers" that were exterminating them in the early years of this country? If people like you had been in charge back then, the solution would have been to kill all the Native Americans!
We should back out of Israel because it's the right thing to do, not because these terrorists scared us into it. Unfortunately, this country was slowly getting around to accept that when these attacks occured. But at least we have people like you around to sensationalize this whole event beyond rationality and advocate the extermination of more innocent people.
So you want to ensure the death of more innocent people in retailiation for the death of innocent people? It's ideas like yours that caused this mess in the first place.
The US Government does not provide funding to terrorists.
You are so naive. Our history is full of cases of our funding terrorists in various countries. In some cases, it's just a matter of perspective, but in others it's quite obvious to anyone who pays attention (which is only about 1% of the U.S. population).
Anyone can sue you for anything at any time. If the lawsuite is completely absurd, then the judge will throw it out right away, but you still need to hire a lawyer and go to court. Fortunately, for cases in small-claims court (like those TV shows), you don't need a lawyer, but you still need to go to court.
And a $2,500 purchase at your local meat shop will put hundreds of dead animals to good use.
Are hope you're not serious. I have a hard time believing that a Slashdot reader is that stupid.
You should do some research on TNR. If you simply remove a cat from its environment (by relocating it or killing it), another cat will just take its place.
As for the purpose of the cat's life, what's the purpose of yours? Just to procreate? Give me a break!
Please mod the above post up. This is the #1 reason not to get a robot pet.
Truthfully, most (if not all) Humane Society shelters have adopted a "no kill" policy. It's the other shetlers that kill animals because no one will adopt them.
Every day, thousands of cats and dogs around the country are killed because of overpopulation. There are organizations like Alley Cat Allies which set up Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs in areas around the country to humane control a cat population, but it's not enough.
A $2,500 donation to your local shelter will literally save the lives of dozens of animals. People who spend that money instead on some stupid toy robot disgust me.
Better yet, they should just not sell the CD at all. If they really feel this technology is evil, then they shouldn't sell the product. I'm sure they won't lose that much money over it.
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
Congratulations on being appointed to the Microsoft case (United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation and State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action Nos. 98-1232 and 98-1233). This is a landmark case that will affect everyone who uses a personal computer.
I have been a victim of Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices for over ten years. In that time, Microsoft has made it very difficult for me to use alternatives to their products. In every other market, I have complete freedom of choice. Ford doesn't prevent me from buying a Honda automobile. Toshiba doesn't do anything to hinder my purchase of a Sony TV. Delta Airlines doesn't prevent Continental from flying to any airport. Yet after all this time, I still cannot purchase any IBM-compatible computer I want without Windows pre-installed.
The Department of Justice claims that the tying of Internet Explorer (Microsoft's web browser) to Windows is the most egregious violation of their monopoly. I disagree. The real problem is the secret agreements between Microsoft and the computer vendors (e.g. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.). Vendors enter into these agreements so that they can purchase Windows at a competitive price. Unfortunately, Microsoft includes special conditions in these agreements, and it is my opinion that these conditions are what make Microsoft an illegal monopoly.
If you can, please pull up your web browser and go to
There, you can read an article about the boot loader issue. The boot loader is a piece of software that determines which operating system your computer loads when it is turned on. On most computers, only one operating system is installed, and the boot loader automatically and transparently loads it. However, it is possible to divide your computer's hard drive into two or more sections and have a different operating system installed in each section. In such cases, the boot loader will ask the user to choose which operating system he wants to load. This happens every time the computer is turned on.
Microsoft's agreements with the vendors prevent them from selling a computer which provides this feature. As you can tell from the article, the company Be was willing to let vendors include their operating system, BeOS, free of charge. Computer vendors today are having a very difficult time competing against each other because their products are all very similar: IBM-compatible personal computers with the Windows operating system. Many vendors would like to ship a computer that has two operating systems, because this would help differentiate their products. A computer that had both Windows and BeOS (or Linux, which is another free operating system) would allow the customer to continue using Windows, but would also allow him to try BeOS, Linux, etc. Microsoft understands that this feature is a serious threat to their monopoly, which is why they disallow it.
When a user purchases a copy of Windows or a computer with Windows installed, that user has to agree to a license. This license, known as an End User License Agreement (EULA), generally allows the purchaser to use his copy of Windows as he sees fit, provided he uses it only one one computer. I believe that this agreement is sufficient for the computer vendors as well, and that computer vendors should not be forced to accept more restrictive agreements just to get a lower price.
I understand that your task in the Microsoft case is to find a remedy to their illegal monopolistic practices. Your remedy will be far more effective if it prohibits these secret agreements. The vendors should be allowed to install Windows however they see fit, with any additional software they want. They should also be allowed to remove whatever parts of Windows they don't want (such as Internet Explorer). This would put Windows (and hence Microsoft) on the same playing field as vendors of other operating systems.
compared to her neighbors, Israel is a girl scout.
It's obvious you have been fooled by Jewish propaganda. Example: did you know that Israeli forces back in April destroyed a bunch of olive trees that provide the only source of income for a village in Palestine? They claimed it was for security, but what kind of threat are a bunch of farmers? Just read this: http://www.proactivist.com/opinion/dispatches_isra el_4-2-01.html.
The United States would be way better off if we distanced ourselves from Israel and befriended the Palestinians instead. This Islamophobia is getting out of hand.
Yes, but you don't need to make your application Open Source to get that kind of recognition. I've written lots of closed-source programs and received email from users all over the world.
People who support Open Source development understand the value of it. When you choose an Open Source product, you get the source code, which allows you to do whatever you want with the program, more or less. You can fix bugs or add features. You can determine how it really works, so there are no hidden "back doors". All of these are real benefits that only Open Source gives you.
IMHO, there are only three real reasons why people contribute to Open Source:
The GPL and similar licenses force you to share your enhancements. Sure, you can keep the binaries to yourself, but if you want anyone else to use it, you must give them the source code. There's no way around that.
Open Source developers understand that the only way Open Source works is if people contribute to it. So if you benefit from other people's work, it's only fair if you contribute to it yourself (assuming you're a programmer). If you use GPL software and create your own software, you understand that you promote the idea of Open Source every time you create new Open Source code and distribute it. It's a version of "voting with your dollars", except you're actually "voting with your code".
Most programmers realize that selling software they develop is difficult. The marketing and support issues are time-consuming and expensive. If you want to develop a piece of software that you don't think is going to sell well, you may as well make it Open Source. You lose almost nothing, and you benefit others. Reasons for writing this kind of software include:
You need the software for yourself, and no one is going to write it for you
As a hobbiest programmer, you just like writing code. Some people like ham radio, others like building models, you like writing code.
I don't relieve belive the "prestige" factor that much. I don't think programmers out there really write that much code just so that they can impress others. In a meritocracy, that sort of thing isn't generally acknowledged.
Or are they just inefficiently allocated or something?
You think?
The rest of the world waits until the U.S. is finished making the mistakes that often come when a new technology is introduced. The problem is that once we realize we've made mistakes, our "solution" is to patch things up, not throw the whole thing out and start over. In the meantime, the rest of the world says, "Ok, the U.S. has invented this technology and discovered some of the problems. Now how can we implement it correctly?"
The fact that IBM failed at marketing a certain product is no indicator that another company will fail at marketing a similar product. IBM is notoriously bad at marketing, so you can't use them as an example.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet none of the terrorists ever played Quake. Of course, those who promote the idea that video games make people violent would claim that that is irrelevant.
Anyway, it would also allow us to preserve our history, both in our hearts and in our "visual arts". People will be able to look at images of the WTC without being so despondent.
Of course, the new WTC should be designed to handle a similar attack, and should have better escape routes, but otherwise it should look the same.
You really need to think hardware before you say such things.
802.11 is bad idea in an apartment complex.
This call-to-arms is a defensive measure. It's only supposed to be used when defending against invaders. Some fanaticals, like the Taliban, think that the mere influence of non-Muslims is an attack. These people are obviously deluded and no different from the power-hungry "Christians" who commanded the Crusades. The point that I and other Muslims are trying to get across is that so-called "Islamic fundamentalists" (I really hate that term) are exactly like the Christians who fought in the Crusades. One day I hope that their kind will be eliminated, and the rest of the world will see the true Islam.
So what would you call the Crusades?
And then said, "Hey, this would be a great place for a Jewish temple!" (paraphrased from reports I heard at the time). Apparently, there was only a mosque there.
But I agree, the Palestinians are just too volatile.
Just make the walls thick enough so that any explosive force that can take out the wall will also destroy the plane. And make sure it's obvious that this will happen.
You don't kill terrorists to punish them, you kill them to get rid of them! The more terrorists you kill, the less terrorism there will be. Duh!
Of course, the hard part is killing only the terrorists and sparing the innocent victims of Mid-East strife.
Hard for you, maybe, but not for the 7+ million Muslims in the United States who condemn this attack just like everyone else. No, these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."
Right now, most of the Arab countries are our friends. If we were to step up our funding of the Israeli terrorism (yes, that's what it is) of Palestinians, then the entire Arab world would turn against us. If you thought the WTC attack was bad, that's nothing. Right after they cut off our oil supply, the Arabs would send thousands of suicide bombers our way.
Remember all the Native Americans who retaliated against the "settlers" that were exterminating them in the early years of this country? If people like you had been in charge back then, the solution would have been to kill all the Native Americans!
We should back out of Israel because it's the right thing to do, not because these terrorists scared us into it. Unfortunately, this country was slowly getting around to accept that when these attacks occured. But at least we have people like you around to sensationalize this whole event beyond rationality and advocate the extermination of more innocent people.
So you want to ensure the death of more innocent people in retailiation for the death of innocent people? It's ideas like yours that caused this mess in the first place.
You are so naive. Our history is full of cases of our funding terrorists in various countries. In some cases, it's just a matter of perspective, but in others it's quite obvious to anyone who pays attention (which is only about 1% of the U.S. population).
Anyone can sue you for anything at any time. If the lawsuite is completely absurd, then the judge will throw it out right away, but you still need to hire a lawyer and go to court. Fortunately, for cases in small-claims court (like those TV shows), you don't need a lawyer, but you still need to go to court.
Are hope you're not serious. I have a hard time believing that a Slashdot reader is that stupid.
You should do some research on TNR. If you simply remove a cat from its environment (by relocating it or killing it), another cat will just take its place.
As for the purpose of the cat's life, what's the purpose of yours? Just to procreate? Give me a break!
Truthfully, most (if not all) Humane Society shelters have adopted a "no kill" policy. It's the other shetlers that kill animals because no one will adopt them.
Every day, thousands of cats and dogs around the country are killed because of overpopulation. There are organizations like Alley Cat Allies which set up Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs in areas around the country to humane control a cat population, but it's not enough.
A $2,500 donation to your local shelter will literally save the lives of dozens of animals. People who spend that money instead on some stupid toy robot disgust me.
There's no point in writing to Gramm, because he's going to return after this term. He has nothing to lose.
Better yet, they should just not sell the CD at all. If they really feel this technology is evil, then they shouldn't sell the product. I'm sure they won't lose that much money over it.
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
Congratulations on being appointed to the Microsoft case (United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation and State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action Nos. 98-1232 and 98-1233). This is a landmark case that will affect everyone who uses a personal computer.
I have been a victim of Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices for over ten years. In that time, Microsoft has made it very difficult for me to use alternatives to their products. In every other market, I have complete freedom of choice. Ford doesn't prevent me from buying a Honda automobile. Toshiba doesn't do anything to hinder my purchase of a Sony TV. Delta Airlines doesn't prevent Continental from flying to any airport. Yet after all this time, I still cannot purchase any IBM-compatible computer I want without Windows pre-installed.
The Department of Justice claims that the tying of Internet Explorer (Microsoft's web browser) to Windows is the most egregious violation of their monopoly. I disagree. The real problem is the secret agreements between Microsoft and the computer vendors (e.g. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.). Vendors enter into these agreements so that they can purchase Windows at a competitive price. Unfortunately, Microsoft includes special conditions in these agreements, and it is my opinion that these conditions are what make Microsoft an illegal monopoly.
If you can, please pull up your web browser and go to
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0 001/
There, you can read an article about the boot loader issue. The boot loader is a piece of software that determines which operating system your computer loads when it is turned on. On most computers, only one operating system is installed, and the boot loader automatically and transparently loads it. However, it is possible to divide your computer's hard drive into two or more sections and have a different operating system installed in each section. In such cases, the boot loader will ask the user to choose which operating system he wants to load. This happens every time the computer is turned on.
Microsoft's agreements with the vendors prevent them from selling a computer which provides this feature. As you can tell from the article, the company Be was willing to let vendors include their operating system, BeOS, free of charge. Computer vendors today are having a very difficult time competing against each other because their products are all very similar: IBM-compatible personal computers with the Windows operating system. Many vendors would like to ship a computer that has two operating systems, because this would help differentiate their products. A computer that had both Windows and BeOS (or Linux, which is another free operating system) would allow the customer to continue using Windows, but would also allow him to try BeOS, Linux, etc. Microsoft understands that this feature is a serious threat to their monopoly, which is why they disallow it.
When a user purchases a copy of Windows or a computer with Windows installed, that user has to agree to a license. This license, known as an End User License Agreement (EULA), generally allows the purchaser to use his copy of Windows as he sees fit, provided he uses it only one one computer. I believe that this agreement is sufficient for the computer vendors as well, and that computer vendors should not be forced to accept more restrictive agreements just to get a lower price.
I understand that your task in the Microsoft case is to find a remedy to their illegal monopolistic practices. Your remedy will be far more effective if it prohibits these secret agreements. The vendors should be allowed to install Windows however they see fit, with any additional software they want. They should also be allowed to remove whatever parts of Windows they don't want (such as Internet Explorer). This would put Windows (and hence Microsoft) on the same playing field as vendors of other operating systems.
Sincerely,
I can assure you that if the conference had labelled any of the Arab countries as a "racist, apartheid state", the U.S. would not have walked out.
It's obvious you have been fooled by Jewish propaganda. Example: did you know that Israeli forces back in April destroyed a bunch of olive trees that provide the only source of income for a village in Palestine? They claimed it was for security, but what kind of threat are a bunch of farmers? Just read this: http://www.proactivist.com/opinion/dispatches_isra el_4-2-01.html.
The United States would be way better off if we distanced ourselves from Israel and befriended the Palestinians instead. This Islamophobia is getting out of hand.
Yes, but you don't need to make your application Open Source to get that kind of recognition. I've written lots of closed-source programs and received email from users all over the world.
IMHO, there are only three real reasons why people contribute to Open Source:
- The GPL and similar licenses force you to share your enhancements. Sure, you can keep the binaries to yourself, but if you want anyone else to use it, you must give them the source code. There's no way around that.
- Open Source developers understand that the only way Open Source works is if people contribute to it. So if you benefit from other people's work, it's only fair if you contribute to it yourself (assuming you're a programmer). If you use GPL software and create your own software, you understand that you promote the idea of Open Source every time you create new Open Source code and distribute it. It's a version of "voting with your dollars", except you're actually "voting with your code".
- Most programmers realize that selling software they develop is difficult. The marketing and support issues are time-consuming and expensive. If you want to develop a piece of software that you don't think is going to sell well, you may as well make it Open Source. You lose almost nothing, and you benefit others. Reasons for writing this kind of software include:
- You need the software for yourself, and no one is going to write it for you
- As a hobbiest programmer, you just like writing code. Some people like ham radio, others like building models, you like writing code.
I don't relieve belive the "prestige" factor that much. I don't think programmers out there really write that much code just so that they can impress others. In a meritocracy, that sort of thing isn't generally acknowledged.You think?
The rest of the world waits until the U.S. is finished making the mistakes that often come when a new technology is introduced. The problem is that once we realize we've made mistakes, our "solution" is to patch things up, not throw the whole thing out and start over. In the meantime, the rest of the world says, "Ok, the U.S. has invented this technology and discovered some of the problems. Now how can we implement it correctly?"
The fact that IBM failed at marketing a certain product is no indicator that another company will fail at marketing a similar product. IBM is notoriously bad at marketing, so you can't use them as an example.