Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:YHWH: the name above all [other] names (Score 0) 127

This is how it is, Islam "claims" that Allah is the same as the God of Abraham (YHWH). However, close examination of the scriptures of Islam and the Torah&Bible show that Allah *cannot* be the same as YHWH. For example, Allah is described numerous times as the "greatest of deceivers", while the Torah describes the the God of Abraham as being unable to lie. There are numerous contradictions between Allah and YHWH according to the scriptures. So if YHWH has attributes that are opposite to that those of Allah it means that YHWH and Allah are not the same - and the claim made by Islam is false (just as the claim that Mohammed was a prophet in the Judaic are claimed but also false: the prophets in Abrahamic faiths are descendents of a particular bloodline, and can usually perform miracles - Mohammed does none of these. Mohammed also sets by personal example and teaches many things against Mosaic Law [The Ten Commandments] and the example of Jesus - in fact, you can consider Mohammed to be an 'anti-christ' since the things the hadiths say he did are completely against the example set by Judaism and Christianity [banditry, torture, burning people alive, having a breastfeeding woman pulled limb from limb, ordering assinations, marrying his son's wife, child sex with 9 year old Aisha, keeping slaves and having sex with them, deceptive treaties, worshiping the moon god of his tribe "Il illah", bowing down before the black stone of mecca, etc etc])

So, please understand what is "claimed" by Islam is not the same as what is true about Islam. If you god is the "greatest of deceivers" does that suprise you that so many are misled? The ideology called Islam is simply deceptive and evil. The more you learn about its underpinnings the worse it gets. To bad many simply accept its claims (eg. the wikipedia editors) without investigating whether the claims are true or not. With Islam so many claimed things are lies.

Comment Re:Vendor's processes not relevant (Score 1) 73

When vendors say they need more time, they're asking me to leave my systems vulnerable without telling me they're vulnerable. Sorry, but no. Not, that is, unless they're willing to shoulder 100% of all the costs resulting from that vulnerability being exploited.

The bit that you're ignoring is that by telling you about the vulnerability they're also telling all the black hats about it. So while your systems are vulnerable either way, the choice is between you and all the hackers knowing or you and most of the hackers not knowing. Whether this increases or decreases your actual exposure depends on who is interested in attacking you and whether or not they already have this exploit.

While you may be capable of implementing countermeasures to limit your vulnerability until a patch is published, that doesn't mean everyone is. On balance, is it better to hold exploits close until fixes are available? There are valid arguments on both sides, but on balance I tend to side with keeping things quiet for a bit while the vendors get a fix out.

Comment Bah (Score 1) 376

I have no patience with people who take it upon themselves to tell other people what they should be choosing to do with their lives and their businesses. If someone wants to write silly phone apps and there are enough people willing to shell out their own hard-earned money to buy them, then the existence of the customer base is enough justification for the existence of the apps. Apparently enough people find enough value in them to make them profitable. If not, well, then the "best and brightest" will go find something that more people do find valuable.

This argument about the "underclass" is particularly silly, because a large percentage of the American "underclass" has smartphones and buys the apps! Essentially, this guy isn't just telling the "best and brightest" what they should be doing with their time, he's also telling the "underclass" what they shouldn't be doing with their money. That sort of condescension is elitism of the worst order, because it allows elitists to feel they aren't being elitist, but rather "serving" the underprivileged -- who are clearly too stupid to make their own decisions.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 167

Wrong.

There are examples of unconstitutional behavior by the executive prior to FDR, certainly, but the pattern of consistent behavior started with him, and the two cases you cite are not such examples. The Federal Reserve may or may not be a good idea, but there's nothing in the constitution prohibiting it, and the Supreme Court decided (unanimously and properly) in 1819 that the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish a banking system. And there was nothing unconstitutional about either the excise taxes that prompted the Whiskey Rebellion or the manner in which Washington put it down.

Comment Re:Disbar, impeach, and imprison that shyster. (Score 1) 167

It's particularly interesting to look at this when the 4th amendment is understood in its proper historical context.

The fourth amendment doesn't say that warrants are required for searches, it says that (a) citizens should not be subject to unreasonable searches and (b) warrants may not be issued except on probable cause, issued by a judge, etc.

When James Madison wrote that he and those around him didn't view warrants as a good thing, they viewed them with suspicion, as a way that people could legally but abusively bypass the restriction on unreasonable searches, so Madison put requirements on warrants to discourage their use. The expectation of the day was that most searches would be done without warrants, and that it would be up to the jury to decide if they were unreasonable -- and that the jury would take a very skeptical view.

The thing about these letters, as well as FISA warrants, warrantless wiretaps, and all of the other abuses of recent years, is that they're sidestepping both protections against unreasonable search. They're not obeying the requirements of warrants, but they're also not allowed to be questioned by juries. Assuming, of course, that the government chooses to even bother with juries, rather than just declaring the targets enemy combatants and shipping them off to Gitmo without a trial. Or just executing them.

This stuff really is terrifying. We need to get our government under control.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 167

They've been bypassing the Constitution for almost 12 years now, when and how they see fit.

12 years? Try 75. Take a look at the New Deal provisions which were being struck down left and right until FDR threatened to pack the court with as many justices as necessary to get the majority he wanted.

It's been nearly all downhill from there. There were isolated cases of executives ignoring the Constitution before (and getting away with it), but it wasn't until the 1930s that it really became systemic.

Comment Re:Metro should be able to run in a window on the (Score 1) 800

> Metro should have been put inside of Explorer, as an optional component

Actually, I think Metro on the Desktop would have been better received if implemented as a thing you can bring up in front of the rest of your UI, when you want it, sort of like the Dashboard in OS X.

As it stands, it was received even less enthusiastically than the horribly mishandled Vista Gadget Sidebar. Seven moved the non-resizable Gadgets to the desktop and eliminated the sidebar; I don't know if Eight even supports the gadgets at all. If you want to see how the sidebar *should* have been implemented, look at Gnome's panel applets.

Comment Re:Preserve Cultural Heritage (Score 1) 155

> Dubbed dialog is invariably out of lip sync.

Well, yes, but *all* movie dialog is out of sync these days. It has been ever since the demise of VHS. Have you *ever* watched a DVD and had the sound track be fully in sync with the video?

> worse, it is low budget, performed by low quality
> actors under the direction of a low quality director
> without any supervision from the original direction

That's not inherent to dubbing. Insofar as it's true (which, admittedly, is frequently the case), it's a consequence of the fact that the market for the dubbed version is generally much smaller than the original market for which the piece was filmed.

Comment Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score 1) 252

> ReactOS is a project to build a free,
> open-source clone of Windows,

I think you just answered your own question.

> Why on earth hasn't this received more
> support from the OSS community?

Most of us in the open-source community don't *like* Windows all that much. We aren't particularly interested in a clone of it, no matter how it's licensed. I find myself vaguely curious about whether ReactOS will ever reach a point of actually being a meaningful competitor for Windows, but this is the same kind of purely theoretical curiosity that leads me to wonder whether stovepipe hats might someday make a fashion comeback. It's a purely abstract curiosity. I don't actually *care*.

> Linux is fine for servers, portable devices, and
> embedded systems, but trying to stick it on the
> desktop is a foolish dream that has failed for
> over 10 years.

Whatever, dude.

Linux was *designed* for the desktop. The fact that it's good on servers and embedded systems is just a nice bonus. I've been using Linux on the desktop since the late nineties. My computer does what I want it to do, and the OS stays out of my way and lets me do whatever I'm doing, and I don't have to jump through a bunch of stupid hoops all the time. This is partly because I have my desktop significantly customized -- it wouldn't be so good on an out-of-the-box install; but said customization is *possible* because I'm using an inherently customizable system. Windows allows you to customize the color scheme and mouse pointers and stuff, but anything that would actually have a major impact on how the software operates, forget it.

Now, granted, a lot of people prefer Windows. But most of those people aren't open-source developers. This is not a coincidence. Windows was *designed* to appeal to people who are NOT computer geeks. That was kind of the whole point, actually: regular people wanted to type up papers and stuff but didn't want to learn technical stuff (e.g., the command line -- which is significantly simpler than programming but still overwhelmingly more technical than anything most Windows users will touch with a ten-foot pole). Windows was made for regular people.

But most programmers, it turns out, don't really think that way, and Windows tends not to appeal so much to most of them.

There are, of course, exceptions.

Comment Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (Score -1, Offtopic) 351

The Government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do with regard to soda. In theory at least, the US Government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. So either the Government must discard the Constitution and can then dictate in minute detail what you can eat, drink and think - or the Constitution holds and the Government can GTFO of your life. Only closest totalitarians want the former.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop

Working...