You get a default judgement, aka, you automatically win.
Then you turn it over to a collection agency. When they manage to collect you get like 50% of it or something, and if they can't track down the guy or he has no assets, it doesn't cost you anything.
Or you can try to track them down yourself and put a lien on their property, but that's a lot of work.
Um...you can't release patches to the Linux kernel under the BSD license, and, even if you could, that would be entirely pointless, as you can't use them without Linux anyway.
Do you people even know what SELinux is? It's a way to partition off linux programs completely from each other. It's not like it's usable in Window, you can't just move stuff between OSes like that.
What the hell is the point of that? The NSA employees hundreds of computer security experts. Outsourcing is possibly the stupidist possible suggestion you could make.
Working on security is half the NSA's job. (The other half being working on encryption.) They chose to work on the security of Linux, because they use it. Because they want to see their changes incorperated into the kernel (So they don't have to keep updating it.), they gave it back to the community. They didn't just decide to start a computer programming business for no reason, they want security in their OSes and they use Linux. (Possibly because that's code they know doesn't have backdoors.)
This isn't the NSA trying to compete with MS, this is the NSA trying to make things simpler for itself by putting security, as default, in the OS it uses, so it doesn't have to patch the source each time, and more people will look at the code and find mistakes. (The NSA doesn't fall for security though obscurity. They are well aware the best way to make something security is to hand a copy to a million people and ask them to break it.)
It's fine with me, if she'll refund the price of my movie ticket, and pay me for my wasted time (Which includes the entire time of the movie.)
So, let's see...let's call it an hour wasted on the ends (together), and two hours of movie time that I'm going to have to spend again to see the movie, so three hours at 15 dollars an hour, plus a 7 dollar movie ticket...so that's...about 50 dollars.
When she's willing to pay me, and everyone else, 50 dollars so we can see the damned movie again, sure, she can have a cellphone not on vibrate. Otherwise, I don't see how her job magically gives her the right to rip me off. I mean, hell, the President isn't allow to pickpocket people, is he? Doctors aren't allowed to ram people off the road to get to the hospital faster, are they? Well, nurses aren't allowed to steal from movie goers.
I hope her experienced scared her so back she'll never go into a theater again with her cellhone on ring.
Everyone should have to pay the fines, dumbass. Doctors don't get exceptions from the law.
This is a public sound ordinance, it's no more a slippery slope than ones that say you can't have your car radio loud enough to be heard X yards away. And it's actually much less slippery than those, as those are usually somewhat subjective, while this is completely objective. Cellphone on your person rings outloud during a show, you get a fine. Answer or make a call within the house during a show, you get a fine. Unlike normal sound ordinances, where a cop just earballs it, it's completely objective, and there are 100+ witness and cellphone record.
You're trying to make this into something it isn't. People who talk during performances are ruining an expensive purchase of other people, hence, they should be fined.
I want evidence from you that it's more dangerous to talk on a cellphone than to pull over. Most accidents are caused by speed differences, like what happens when you pull over.
It's not just hacking your DNS server, it means people can domain name hijack, which happens all the time, they can just stick a transparent proxy on your pipe, they can poison DNS caches, etc.
There are literally dozens of way to have someone's request for amazon.com to end up at evilhackers.com, and https:// is supposed to ensure that Verisign or some other company thinks that really is amazon.com
You're a little slow, aren't you? There is no such thing as 'Linux Kernel 6.2' or '7.0'. iBCS still exists and is doing fine. It stopped coming with the distro because no almost no one uses it, and it has a completely seperate update schedule.
Yeah, at this point, non-confirmed opt-it pretty much counts as 'spam', because most of it you were really opted in by the spammer. I'm sure MS wasn't doing that, but if you can't prove it's not spam, it's spam.;)
No, it's not. One doesn't fit the defination of prime, but that's not what makes it not-prime.
One is not prime because it break prime theory if it is prime, and hence the defination excludes it.
Definations do not define reality. Prime is a useful term for a set of numbers, and that set of numbers does not include 1, so one is excluded and hence not prime. The dictionary didn't make it not prime, the fact it doesn't act like a prime number makes it not prime.
You know, I was thinking the exact same thing..are we talking about the speed of light in a hypothetical 'perfect' vacuum (Which it has been suggested is infinite, or possibly zero.), or the speed of light in the 'vacuum' of the starting universe vs. the 'vacuum' of present day?
And I have no clue what this 'maybe FTL is possible' silliness is (From the article, not from you.). If the speed of light slowed down to 60 mph, I fail to see how we wouldn't start seeing relativistic effects at about ~40 mph, and people wouldn't be able to accelerate over 59 mph.
It's not like we can't accelerate faster than the speed of light because it's 'so fast', it's because it's the friggin speed of light and time slows down to a stop as you approach it, it's not going to matter if that's 186,000 mps or 60 mph. And if you do manage to go over it, you're experience time backwards, which would make driving very confusing. (Of course, if everyone on the expressway was going that fast, it might just work, but I pity the exit ramps where you'll run into yourself going the other direction in time and space as you cross 60 mph. A one car collision!)
Well, yes, but that's 'answering' the question by defining it away. You can't just make two catagories that supposedly mean something, and then run across the one exception and define which it goes in. You have to figure out what the catagories are really trying to define, what the 'magical' properties of primes are, and does one have those properties.
You can't just say 'Pfft, I'm sticking it in the non-prime camp by excluding it from the primes'.
Personally, in many instances of how primes are used, one doesn't matter either way, but in the rest of them, one breaks the rules, like prime factorization and the sieve of what's-his-name, where you have to not count 1 as a prime number. That's the 'reason' it's not a prime, it breaks things, it's not non-prime because God declared it so. It doesn't fit the rules for the rest of the primes and what you can do with them.
And a much more non-exceptional defination is 'a prime number is a number that has exactly two unique factors'. None of this silliness about 'one and itself', none about greater than one, just 'exactly two unique factors'.
Dude, since when did rental places have 'licenses' to rent things? They bought the movies just like everyone else, and, just like everyone else, they can loan their copy out for a fee.
This is, of course, assuming they're labeled as such, because otherwise it's probably fraud against the consumers. But I can buy a copy of Titanic, tape five minutes of a drum solo into the middle of it, and legally rent it to people as 'The Titanic with five minutes of a drum solo in the middle'.
Re:This is why the populace needs to be educated.
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that the post office does not receive government funds, right?
Re:parents shouldn't have to -- I disagree
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 1
There's a difference between knowing something and having to filter something.
I agree, parents should know what their kids typically do online, from what web sites they visit, to who they email, to what chat rooms they frequent. However, a parent shouldn't have to sit between their kid and his computer and weed out all the inapproriate messages the kid does not want to see. (Ones he does want to see, of course, are a completely different issue.) (Note I'm talking about young kids here, too.)
Email is something kids want, and probably 'need', for sufficently low values of need. Most kids would rather have email access than a telephone. And due to free webmail, you can't really stop them from having an account anyway.
But even if they're using their account for G or PG rated purposes, every once in a while...I would say NC-17, but you can't have people having sex with horses or preteens even in a NC-17 movie, so every once in a while their account gets hit with illegal sexually explict material, and I mean illegal for adults, too.
Yes, monitor your children, but you should not have to stand between them and their email, anymore than you should have to watch Saturday morning cartoons before they do just in case some hardcode porn snuck in there.
(Don't try to make this a censorship issue, there is a world of difference between saying kids can't have access to certain sites if they want to see them, and kids shouldn't be exposed to things whether or not they want to be. If a kid is going to playboy.com, or having email-sex with someone, that's an entirely different issue.)
Erm, if the address was legitimately signed up, I fail to see how it's 'spam'. Are they supposed to psychically know the address changed owners or something?
Who the hell said the laws would have anything to do with 'ads'. The laws would be against unsolicted bulk emailings. Emailing the same messages to more than ~10 people who did not request it (theft of the commons) (Need to make some rules about 'exploders', like mailing lists, but that can be figured out later), with added penalties for false information (fraud) and hijacking open relays (theft). Selling email address under false pretenses (as 99.999999% of all lists are sold under) would have large fines, also.
No one wants restrictions on content. If a company can get three hundred people to legitimately sign up to receive ads, more power to them. People want restrictions on other people using their inbox without explict permission. A random person emailing just them is fine, doesn't matter the content.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you turn it over to a collection agency. When they manage to collect you get like 50% of it or something, and if they can't track down the guy or he has no assets, it doesn't cost you anything.
Or you can try to track them down yourself and put a lien on their property, but that's a lot of work.
As SELinux is a kernel patch, and hence a derivative work, it is licensed under the GPL automatically.
I don't see why the NSA doesn't just release these things into the public domain, it's not like the code is actually usuable without Linux anyway.
Do you people even know what SELinux is? It's a way to partition off linux programs completely from each other. It's not like it's usable in Window, you can't just move stuff between OSes like that.
Working on security is half the NSA's job. (The other half being working on encryption.) They chose to work on the security of Linux, because they use it. Because they want to see their changes incorperated into the kernel (So they don't have to keep updating it.), they gave it back to the community. They didn't just decide to start a computer programming business for no reason, they want security in their OSes and they use Linux. (Possibly because that's code they know doesn't have backdoors.)
This isn't the NSA trying to compete with MS, this is the NSA trying to make things simpler for itself by putting security, as default, in the OS it uses, so it doesn't have to patch the source each time, and more people will look at the code and find mistakes. (The NSA doesn't fall for security though obscurity. They are well aware the best way to make something security is to hand a copy to a million people and ask them to break it.)
Well, of course it's less distruptive than a phone ringing, that's obvious, but I doubt it's less disruptive than one vibrating.
So, let's see...let's call it an hour wasted on the ends (together), and two hours of movie time that I'm going to have to spend again to see the movie, so three hours at 15 dollars an hour, plus a 7 dollar movie ticket...so that's...about 50 dollars.
When she's willing to pay me, and everyone else, 50 dollars so we can see the damned movie again, sure, she can have a cellphone not on vibrate. Otherwise, I don't see how her job magically gives her the right to rip me off. I mean, hell, the President isn't allow to pickpocket people, is he? Doctors aren't allowed to ram people off the road to get to the hospital faster, are they? Well, nurses aren't allowed to steal from movie goers.
I hope her experienced scared her so back she'll never go into a theater again with her cellhone on ring.
This is a public sound ordinance, it's no more a slippery slope than ones that say you can't have your car radio loud enough to be heard X yards away. And it's actually much less slippery than those, as those are usually somewhat subjective, while this is completely objective. Cellphone on your person rings outloud during a show, you get a fine. Answer or make a call within the house during a show, you get a fine. Unlike normal sound ordinances, where a cop just earballs it, it's completely objective, and there are 100+ witness and cellphone record.
You're trying to make this into something it isn't. People who talk during performances are ruining an expensive purchase of other people, hence, they should be fined.
Um...doesn't an usher walking down the isle and getting the person, then both of them walking out, disturb more people then the guy walking out?
I want evidence from you that it's more dangerous to talk on a cellphone than to pull over. Most accidents are caused by speed differences, like what happens when you pull over.
Don't be silly, you can't remove SSL from IE, IE is part of the OS, and we all know it can't be removed.
There are literally dozens of way to have someone's request for amazon.com to end up at evilhackers.com, and https:// is supposed to ensure that Verisign or some other company thinks that really is amazon.com
You're a little slow, aren't you? There is no such thing as 'Linux Kernel 6.2' or '7.0'. iBCS still exists and is doing fine. It stopped coming with the distro because no almost no one uses it, and it has a completely seperate update schedule.
Yeah, at this point, non-confirmed opt-it pretty much counts as 'spam', because most of it you were really opted in by the spammer. I'm sure MS wasn't doing that, but if you can't prove it's not spam, it's spam. ;)
Don't even both with abuse@rackspace, thay have never removed a spammer.
One is not prime because it break prime theory if it is prime, and hence the defination excludes it.
Definations do not define reality. Prime is a useful term for a set of numbers, and that set of numbers does not include 1, so one is excluded and hence not prime. The dictionary didn't make it not prime, the fact it doesn't act like a prime number makes it not prime.
And I have no clue what this 'maybe FTL is possible' silliness is (From the article, not from you.). If the speed of light slowed down to 60 mph, I fail to see how we wouldn't start seeing relativistic effects at about ~40 mph, and people wouldn't be able to accelerate over 59 mph.
It's not like we can't accelerate faster than the speed of light because it's 'so fast', it's because it's the friggin speed of light and time slows down to a stop as you approach it, it's not going to matter if that's 186,000 mps or 60 mph. And if you do manage to go over it, you're experience time backwards, which would make driving very confusing. (Of course, if everyone on the expressway was going that fast, it might just work, but I pity the exit ramps where you'll run into yourself going the other direction in time and space as you cross 60 mph. A one car collision!)
You can't just say 'Pfft, I'm sticking it in the non-prime camp by excluding it from the primes'.
Personally, in many instances of how primes are used, one doesn't matter either way, but in the rest of them, one breaks the rules, like prime factorization and the sieve of what's-his-name, where you have to not count 1 as a prime number. That's the 'reason' it's not a prime, it breaks things, it's not non-prime because God declared it so. It doesn't fit the rules for the rest of the primes and what you can do with them.
And a much more non-exceptional defination is 'a prime number is a number that has exactly two unique factors'. None of this silliness about 'one and itself', none about greater than one, just 'exactly two unique factors'.
While I hate to throw QM into a discussion about relativity, if you can't measure it, it ain't got a redshift.
When on earth did Star Trek mention the IRA?
And what the hell is up with FoxFam showing Robin hood, Men in Tights and cutting out all the sexual humor. Hello? That's half the film!
This is, of course, assuming they're labeled as such, because otherwise it's probably fraud against the consumers. But I can buy a copy of Titanic, tape five minutes of a drum solo into the middle of it, and legally rent it to people as 'The Titanic with five minutes of a drum solo in the middle'.
You do realize that the post office does not receive government funds, right?
I agree, parents should know what their kids typically do online, from what web sites they visit, to who they email, to what chat rooms they frequent. However, a parent shouldn't have to sit between their kid and his computer and weed out all the inapproriate messages the kid does not want to see. (Ones he does want to see, of course, are a completely different issue.) (Note I'm talking about young kids here, too.)
Email is something kids want, and probably 'need', for sufficently low values of need. Most kids would rather have email access than a telephone. And due to free webmail, you can't really stop them from having an account anyway.
But even if they're using their account for G or PG rated purposes, every once in a while...I would say NC-17, but you can't have people having sex with horses or preteens even in a NC-17 movie, so every once in a while their account gets hit with illegal sexually explict material, and I mean illegal for adults, too.
Yes, monitor your children, but you should not have to stand between them and their email, anymore than you should have to watch Saturday morning cartoons before they do just in case some hardcode porn snuck in there.
(Don't try to make this a censorship issue, there is a world of difference between saying kids can't have access to certain sites if they want to see them, and kids shouldn't be exposed to things whether or not they want to be. If a kid is going to playboy.com, or having email-sex with someone, that's an entirely different issue.)
Erm, if the address was legitimately signed up, I fail to see how it's 'spam'. Are they supposed to psychically know the address changed owners or something?
No one wants restrictions on content. If a company can get three hundred people to legitimately sign up to receive ads, more power to them. People want restrictions on other people using their inbox without explict permission. A random person emailing just them is fine, doesn't matter the content.