I agree. I'm 36 now (crap - how did that happen?) And *I* hate advertizing. I don't see how this campaign is supposed to help. The last four or five cars my wife and I have bought have been Toyota, and now I'm seriously considering switchng to something else. It makes me sick. And I don't give a crap if this was some so called friend of hers that submitted her name. It makes me sick. I work for a trading company, but I still wonder if this capitalism idea was such a good one. Fuck.
Sexism and FOSS are orthogonal. Conflating the two doesn't help FOSS and it doesn't reduce sexism. All kinds of sexism should be called out. Any decent person will agree. Headlines including "FOSS" and "sexism" sends the wrong signal, and makes FOSS supporters defensive. It smells of trolling. Instead of calling out FOSS, let's call out individuals and their comments - in context (it's easy to mischaracterize some comments by using snippets, or taking then out of context). If members of a particular community want to take some kind of action (appropriate in some cases) then that's up to them. But don't try to make out like FOSS encourages sexism. FOSS is a community of individuals. Individuals can be sexist. Period.
I found it funny, and I could never be called narrow-minded; not by anyone who knows me anyway. On the other hand, it's not "broadly" funny, I suppose. There are large numbers on the so called "christian-right" though, who deserve to be the target of such comments. I'm talking about the biggoted zealots. Those who expect the world to end within the decade, and therefore care more about converting and correcting those around them than helping society make progress.
That's weird - I have mod points, and your comment is both overrated (5-insightful) and off-topic (as you pointed out).
Damn! I've posted, now I can't mod it. Oh well - I'll go mod some of your posts in another thread...
This one is underrated and hilarious. I'll start there.
That's not quite accurate. Patents were created, in part, to give companies an incentive to create new inventions at a time when companies were losing sales to others who were undercutting the original inventor. An inventor needed the monopoly on his invention to help ensure he would make back his initial cost. So "making" was always intended. Also, the system was intended to encourage publishing. Patents are publicly available, but that wasn't to provide potential makers an out to avoid paying licensing fees. The invention could be improved upon either before expiry, by licensing, or after. Either way the detailed plans would be available.
1. Mostly agree.
2. There exist systems secure enough that it's too costly to hack into them.
3. Not true. You do get diminishing returns, but you can get arbitrarily close to any desired level of security.
4. Agree. I can see a new sport...
Actually, it's simple to prove that a repeating sequence of decimals always results in a rational number.
Also, no finite sequence of digits can prove that a number has a repeating pattern.
Nice attempt at mischaracterizing my statement. But all you are doing is conflating two different meanings of a single word.
Also, you are doing it in full knowledge, hence the claim of intellectual dishonesty.
And I'd rather be wrong than dishonest.
I said suggest because it not not a fact, except by your twisted abuse of language. He was not ordained as a priest. You can call him a priest as much as you like - just accept that you are being intellectually dishonest, ie a dickwad.
Sadly, breaking a TOS can be a crime. The fact is that accessing a computer or network without authorization is now a serious crime. A recent decision (which I can probably dig up if required) held that not obeying the publicly posted TOS on a website amounted to accessing the computer without authorization.
You might argue that this is not the same or that there is no "standard" way of posting a TOS; but the courts could quite possibly go either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it make me sound old if I mention early token release?
I agree. I'm 36 now (crap - how did that happen?) And *I* hate advertizing.
I don't see how this campaign is supposed to help. The last four or five cars my wife and I have bought have been Toyota, and now I'm seriously considering switchng to something else.
It makes me sick. And I don't give a crap if this was some so called friend of hers that submitted her name. It makes me sick.
I work for a trading company, but I still wonder if this capitalism idea was such a good one.
Fuck.
Sexism and FOSS are orthogonal. Conflating the two doesn't help FOSS and it doesn't reduce sexism.
All kinds of sexism should be called out. Any decent person will agree.
Headlines including "FOSS" and "sexism" sends the wrong signal, and makes FOSS supporters defensive.
It smells of trolling.
Instead of calling out FOSS, let's call out individuals and their comments - in context (it's easy to mischaracterize some comments by using snippets, or taking then out of context).
If members of a particular community want to take some kind of action (appropriate in some cases) then that's up to them. But don't try to make out like FOSS encourages sexism. FOSS is a community of individuals. Individuals can be sexist. Period.
I found it funny, and I could never be called narrow-minded; not by anyone who knows me anyway.
On the other hand, it's not "broadly" funny, I suppose.
There are large numbers on the so called "christian-right" though, who deserve to be the target of such comments. I'm talking about the biggoted zealots. Those who expect the world to end within the decade, and therefore care more about converting and correcting those around them than helping society make progress.
That's weird - I have mod points, and your comment is both overrated (5-insightful) and off-topic (as you pointed out).
Damn! I've posted, now I can't mod it. Oh well - I'll go mod some of your posts in another thread...
This one is underrated and hilarious. I'll start there.
That's not quite accurate. Patents were created, in part, to give companies an incentive to create new inventions at a time when companies were losing sales to others who were undercutting the original inventor. An inventor needed the monopoly on his invention to help ensure he would make back his initial cost. So "making" was always intended.
Also, the system was intended to encourage publishing. Patents are publicly available, but that wasn't to provide potential makers an out to avoid paying licensing fees. The invention could be improved upon either before expiry, by licensing, or after. Either way the detailed plans would be available.
1. Mostly agree. 2. There exist systems secure enough that it's too costly to hack into them. 3. Not true. You do get diminishing returns, but you can get arbitrarily close to any desired level of security. 4. Agree. I can see a new sport...
Actually, it's simple to prove that a repeating sequence of decimals always results in a rational number. Also, no finite sequence of digits can prove that a number has a repeating pattern.
Parent is not offtopic.
Nice attempt at mischaracterizing my statement. But all you are doing is conflating two different meanings of a single word. Also, you are doing it in full knowledge, hence the claim of intellectual dishonesty. And I'd rather be wrong than dishonest.
I said suggest because it not not a fact, except by your twisted abuse of language. He was not ordained as a priest. You can call him a priest as much as you like - just accept that you are being intellectually dishonest, ie a dickwad.
While you can use the word religion in that sense, you used it to suggest Stalin was a priest. Dickwad
Ah, but did ya have to write it in Basic? PS My brother wrote that. Can you fix my internet, please?
Trust is the problem. If you have the source code, you don't have to rely on trust.
That's exactly the scenario (well, one of the many) the GPL is supposed to prevent.
http://www.ethur.org/blog/entry.asp?ENTRY_ID=41
It already IS, and already HAS.
But remember, this is in the context of an expensive upgrade. This is not a few patches to an existing system.
Maybe he was refering to his own post.
Plus I disagree. This is the most insightful comment.
You work for Microsoft, don't you??
Sadly, breaking a TOS can be a crime. The fact is that accessing a computer or network without authorization is now a serious crime. A recent decision (which I can probably dig up if required) held that not obeying the publicly posted TOS on a website amounted to accessing the computer without authorization.
You might argue that this is not the same or that there is no "standard" way of posting a TOS; but the courts could quite possibly go either way.
If I hadn't lost my mod points I'd mod parent Insightful, not Funny!
150 states? Where the hell are you living?
"The wrong lizard might get in." - Ford Prefect
Yeah, whatever happened to Democracy - sounded like quite a nice idea...