Instead of that, how about having a shortcut, where we can just drop the files on the map instead of having to travel there. You could have a little pictorial representation of the daemon process and just drop the files on that.
The people who we just elected to the electorial college are very prominate members of whatever party won in your state. The republocrats are no more likely to randomly vote democian then then vis versa.
It sounds to me like it's the duplication you have a problem with, not the modifcation. Would you have a problem if they bought your program, moved one pixel, and didn't give it out? What if they just gave a patch out, allowing other people how have the program to move it?
I write software, and can't imagine having a problem with that...granted, all my software tends to be free anyway.
The GPL, similarly, says that certain programs can be used freely, but only by those willing to GPL their work in turn.
This is simply wrong. Anyone can use a GPL program without agreeing to any terms at all. It's only if you distribute it do you have to agree...non-withstanding any legal changes in the GPL3.
I think, however, that the GPL is really the first useful example of communism, or 'Marxism' as some people strangely call it, which proves it works not only in theory, but in practice, assuming you have unlimited resources, exactly as Marx said. I think Marx would love this vindication of his theories.
We have unlimited resources of copies of programs, all restrictions on copying are purely legal. RMS came up with a way to pass around unlimited copies, and yet legally keep other people from adding a few features and keeping people from copying it.
The BSD is, BTW, as much an example of communism, but it allows companies to compete with a free product by using that product itself as a base. This is why communism can't compete if capitalism exists. The capitalist taxi service will just wander over and grab all the communist cars from the free car lot, if you don't make it illegal to 'unfree' a car. But, if you have a car replicator, you can just make more cars, even if the capitalists keep making off with your admittedly free cars. Eventually, everyone will realize they can just phone up the communists and get a free car, even if only BSD exists, and capitalist taxi services are finished.
Basically, I don't think the GPL is needed, but it's a very good way to make sure that the capitalist software and the communist software start off on even ground.:)
Hrm. six billion people at the moment. IPv4 supports 4,294,967,296 addresses. We're obviously short there...now, let's check IPv6.
it's a 128 bit address space, so let's pretend the entire thing is used. 2^128 is...damn, cheap calculator overflowed. Where's my TI-89...okay, 2^128 is...
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 address.
That's...I don't know the word. One past dectillion.
That gives us each...79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 addresses. That's seventy-nine octillion addresses each. Now, even assuming we waste a quadrillion for each address we give out and we each use a quadrillion devices with our own IP, we'll be fine unless we manage to cram 80 people on this planet for every existing person. And I have no idea where I'm supposed to fit my quadrillion cell phones if we do that. Acutally, I doubt I could fit a million cell phones in this dorm room.;)
Yeah, that's rather silly, so just believe people when they say we'll never run out.:)
Um...base 85? So you'd have non-letters, non-numbers in it? And both cases? Or is this some really odd troll? I really only have about 90 symbols I can even type with this keyboard.
-David T. C.
Re:There have been plenty of Death Marches.
on
Death March
·
· Score: 1
Billions of everyone's ancestors have died, wacko. It's be damned crowded otherwise.
One, How exactly do people become 'authorised on your domain' without 'having an account on the machine'? You mean you have some sort of domain login going on? Like, say, Kerbose? Or are you using some weird Windows 'standard' instead of an actual one?
The internet didn't work because it required the user to have authenticated to the network on login.
You know, this really sounds like a windows configuration problem then any Linux flaw. I've set up the connection sharing stuff in 98, and it seems to work just fine for Linux. So does Linux's ip_masc, and normal Windows NT routing.
The filesharing was a joke.
Most of us don't consider NFS a joke.
Oh, wait, you were using SMB? Well, perhaps you should use a frontend like, oh, LinNeighborhood or gnomba or various others, instead of the low level tools. You don't see me complaining about mounting stuff using the 'net' dos command under Windows. (Which, BTW, I have a lot more to complain about then you. You can't even see the help for the entire thing! It scrolls off the screen! And it's on stderr, so |more doesn't catch it! What moron designed that?)
P.S. You weren't even using the easist command line tool you had. 'mount -t smbfs//COMPUTER/MOUNT/local/mount/point' would have been a lot more convenient.
Actually, many things in computers work of probability. For example, when finding if a large number is prime, that's basically a crap shoot. The odds are only 99.9999999999% it's prime, using the standard calculation methods. However, the odds that your computer will get his with a cosmic ray or have some sort of internal failure are actually lower then this. It will be the same with quantume computers. You just repeat the calculation ten times or so, and everything's fine. Hey, they should be running at the speed of light anyway. And anyone using a quantum computer to add two number is crazy. If we ever get them, they will not be 'quantum computers', they will be 'normal computers with a quantum co-processor'.
If someone came up with an equasion you could plug an NP complete problem into, you could plug any NP complete problem into it, but quantum computer isn't a 'mathmatical breakthough' in the sense people talk about solving NP complete things. It's the same math, just doing a bunch of it at once. You probably could put in any NP complete problem, but it's not 'solving' them in anything other then the standard way, it's just doing it really really parallelized.
Sometimes I'm for the 'kill them all and let god sort them out' method of fixing it.:)
Seriously, how about, oh, not allowing software patents at all. Patents are supposed to be on processes, and, while software excuting can be a process, it's also speech. If you invented a new form of art, say mixing interpretive dance with paint (I can't actually imagine this, but oh well.), you wouldn't be allowed to patent that process. Sure, you could copyright the specific act, but someone could make a show like yours, using the same methods you used.
Patents on something as intangible as a softwarte 'process' are just to vague to be allowed. Plus, half the patents on software are on math, which I think is insanely horrible. I don't care if you figured out a specific way to encode something, math is public domain, period.
This is a hilarious idea. The problem is hiding the connections. I think the best way would be to run them 'though' a table but redirect them into a nearby closet or something. And be sure to have the cables that run 'though' your table allow the equipment to be detached at both ends, but the middle is clearly held in place. I doubt they'll knock a hole in the table to get obvious keyboard/monitor/mice extention cables, even if they are running off with the mice and whatnot.
Oh, and be sure to rid some sort of instant screansaver up to a network monitor, so if the computer in view goes down, the screen is insantly blanked until you type, blind, a password, just so they can't press a key when unplugging it. And not to suggest 'tampering' with evidence, but, your real computer has just discovered you've been attacked by the feds. There might be some 'things' it wants to do.
No you don't. The only place anything like that applies is the courts, whereas if you appear in your own defense, you agree to be cross-examined. You still don't techincally have to answer questions, but saying 'I plead the fifth.' to every question makes you look bad in the front of the jury, whereas not appearing at all doesn't seem to influence them much at all.
But with the police, you can answer any questions you want, and shut up about the rest. Of course, if you demand to talk to your lawyer, they're not supposed to ask you anymore. Cops aren't allowed to sit there and badger you with questions if you choose not to talk. It's usually okay if they ask you one or two after you said you want a lawyer, but once you've clearly stopped answering, they have to stop pestering you, even if you are under arrest.
Either you're delusion, live in some fascist place, or don't know what you're talking about. Any home owner I know can knock a hole in their house and put in a door, without even notifying the government, much less get permission.
Now, for things like adding floors or even large rooms, you have to notify the government, so they can tax you more, but you still don't need permission. I've lived in a house that, over the years, not only got new doors in random places, but over 1000 more square space, and we never once needed a 'permit' for any sort. We had to compile with building code, presumably, though.
Why I bother responding to this I have no idea, but the code was not 'spammed' all over usenet. It was put up on FTP. The entire Linux kernel has never been posted to usenet. But, of course, you knew this already.
You are either a troll, or a moron. The completely obvious reason that drugs can have impurities is, hey, they're unregulated. And why are they unregulated? Well, the FDA can't seem to find the illegal labs. For the same reason, almost no drugs have the ingredients, recomended dosages, or side effects on the carton...again, the FDA can't exactly require it on products that are illegal anyway.
And it's the same thing with 'murder and intimidation'. Hey, idiot. Those aren't part of the 'drug trade'. Those are part of the 'lucrative illegal things trade'. Drugs, at the moment, fall under 'lucrative illegal things'. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I hate to be so insulting, but you haven't apparently thought this though at all. I would feel worse except you call the guy you were replying to a 'loser'.
Next you're going to claim that solictiting prositution causes murder, or blackmail causes murder. It's money+illegal activity that causes the violence, plain and simply.
Actually, you can't even get your own password as an unpriviledged user. You'd have to set up some fake login prompt and wait for yourself to log in. Or course, that way you can get anyone's password, assuming they don't do Alt-SysReg-K first to reset the console, or Ctrl-Alt-Baskspace for xdm. It's probably easier to get other people's password then you're own this way, because you'll know you installed the fake login program, and will reset before login.
Of course, all this is rather hypothetical, as stealing passwords from yourself is rather stupid.:)
And, if you really wanted too, you could just email the admin asking him to change it to a different one.:)
-David T. C.
Re:See what happens when you rely on NT
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. I think we can all agree that on a system with mere Unix-grade security, the game is all up once you've got Root.
What an odd comment. You mean, once someone is the user designed to be able to do anything to the system, they can do anything to the system? Far out.
Your comment really doesn't make any sense. Are you implying there are systems where having administrator/root/wheel level access doesn't let you take over the system? I think that's a bit of an oxymoron. If you have total access to the system, you can do anything, by defination.
BTW, there are things oout there that can restrict root...LIDS, for example, which uses capablities and other stuff. But that's just adding a level in the middle. Or you can use groups and setuid binaries on vanilla unix systems, or ACLs on NT. But, yeah, once you're root, you can do anything, just like if you have an administrator account on NT.
-David T. C.
Re:s/NT/stupidly trojan-enabled software/
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it's.shs it hides, no matter what you do.
Slashdot Mirror
I hearby dub this idea 'drag-and-drop'.
-David T. C.
Even assuming the picture can't be modified, all you proved was you were at Paris on or after that day.
-David T. C.
The people who we just elected to the electorial college are very prominate members of whatever party won in your state. The republocrats are no more likely to randomly vote democian then then vis versa.
-David T. C.
Um..lots of people who aren't on the ballot do things like that. It's called the cabinet.
-David T. C.
That's probably why they're called a 'minority', goofball.
-David T. C.
I write software, and can't imagine having a problem with that...granted, all my software tends to be free anyway.
-David T. C.
This is simply wrong. Anyone can use a GPL program without agreeing to any terms at all. It's only if you distribute it do you have to agree...non-withstanding any legal changes in the GPL3.
I think, however, that the GPL is really the first useful example of communism, or 'Marxism' as some people strangely call it, which proves it works not only in theory, but in practice, assuming you have unlimited resources, exactly as Marx said. I think Marx would love this vindication of his theories.
We have unlimited resources of copies of programs, all restrictions on copying are purely legal. RMS came up with a way to pass around unlimited copies, and yet legally keep other people from adding a few features and keeping people from copying it.
The BSD is, BTW, as much an example of communism, but it allows companies to compete with a free product by using that product itself as a base. This is why communism can't compete if capitalism exists. The capitalist taxi service will just wander over and grab all the communist cars from the free car lot, if you don't make it illegal to 'unfree' a car. But, if you have a car replicator, you can just make more cars, even if the capitalists keep making off with your admittedly free cars. Eventually, everyone will realize they can just phone up the communists and get a free car, even if only BSD exists, and capitalist taxi services are finished.
Basically, I don't think the GPL is needed, but it's a very good way to make sure that the capitalist software and the communist software start off on even ground. :)
-David T. C.
it's a 128 bit address space, so let's pretend the entire thing is used. 2^128 is...damn, cheap calculator overflowed. Where's my TI-89...okay, 2^128 is...5 6 address.
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,4
That's...I don't know the word. One past dectillion.
That gives us each...79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 addresses. That's seventy-nine octillion addresses each. Now, even assuming we waste a quadrillion for each address we give out and we each use a quadrillion devices with our own IP, we'll be fine unless we manage to cram 80 people on this planet for every existing person. And I have no idea where I'm supposed to fit my quadrillion cell phones if we do that. Acutally, I doubt I could fit a million cell phones in this dorm room. ;)
Yeah, that's rather silly, so just believe people when they say we'll never run out. :)
-David T. C.
Um...base 85? So you'd have non-letters, non-numbers in it? And both cases? Or is this some really odd troll? I really only have about 90 symbols I can even type with this keyboard.
-David T. C.
Billions of everyone's ancestors have died, wacko. It's be damned crowded otherwise.
-David T. C.
One, How exactly do people become 'authorised on your domain' without 'having an account on the machine'? You mean you have some sort of domain login going on? Like, say, Kerbose? Or are you using some weird Windows 'standard' instead of an actual one?
The internet didn't work because it required the user to have authenticated to the network on login.
You know, this really sounds like a windows configuration problem then any Linux flaw. I've set up the connection sharing stuff in 98, and it seems to work just fine for Linux. So does Linux's ip_masc, and normal Windows NT routing.
The filesharing was a joke.
Most of us don't consider NFS a joke.
Oh, wait, you were using SMB? Well, perhaps you should use a frontend like, oh, LinNeighborhood or gnomba or various others, instead of the low level tools. You don't see me complaining about mounting stuff using the 'net' dos command under Windows. (Which, BTW, I have a lot more to complain about then you. You can't even see the help for the entire thing! It scrolls off the screen! And it's on stderr, so |more doesn't catch it! What moron designed that?)
P.S. You weren't even using the easist command line tool you had. 'mount -t smbfs //COMPUTER/MOUNT /local/mount/point' would have been a lot more convenient.
-David T. C.
Actually, many things in computers work of probability. For example, when finding if a large number is prime, that's basically a crap shoot. The odds are only 99.9999999999% it's prime, using the standard calculation methods. However, the odds that your computer will get his with a cosmic ray or have some sort of internal failure are actually lower then this. It will be the same with quantume computers. You just repeat the calculation ten times or so, and everything's fine. Hey, they should be running at the speed of light anyway. And anyone using a quantum computer to add two number is crazy. If we ever get them, they will not be 'quantum computers', they will be 'normal computers with a quantum co-processor'.
-David T. C.
If someone came up with an equasion you could plug an NP complete problem into, you could plug any NP complete problem into it, but quantum computer isn't a 'mathmatical breakthough' in the sense people talk about solving NP complete things. It's the same math, just doing a bunch of it at once. You probably could put in any NP complete problem, but it's not 'solving' them in anything other then the standard way, it's just doing it really really parallelized.
-David T. C.
Seriously, how about, oh, not allowing software patents at all. Patents are supposed to be on processes, and, while software excuting can be a process, it's also speech. If you invented a new form of art, say mixing interpretive dance with paint (I can't actually imagine this, but oh well.), you wouldn't be allowed to patent that process. Sure, you could copyright the specific act, but someone could make a show like yours, using the same methods you used.
Patents on something as intangible as a softwarte 'process' are just to vague to be allowed. Plus, half the patents on software are on math, which I think is insanely horrible. I don't care if you figured out a specific way to encode something, math is public domain, period.
-David T. C.
Oh, and be sure to rid some sort of instant screansaver up to a network monitor, so if the computer in view goes down, the screen is insantly blanked until you type, blind, a password, just so they can't press a key when unplugging it. And not to suggest 'tampering' with evidence, but, your real computer has just discovered you've been attacked by the feds. There might be some 'things' it wants to do.
-David T. C.
But with the police, you can answer any questions you want, and shut up about the rest. Of course, if you demand to talk to your lawyer, they're not supposed to ask you anymore. Cops aren't allowed to sit there and badger you with questions if you choose not to talk. It's usually okay if they ask you one or two after you said you want a lawyer, but once you've clearly stopped answering, they have to stop pestering you, even if you are under arrest.
-David T. C.
Why put in a motherboard? The keyboard voltage is 5 volts, right? Can't you get that directly off the power suppy?
-David T. C.
Now, for things like adding floors or even large rooms, you have to notify the government, so they can tax you more, but you still don't need permission. I've lived in a house that, over the years, not only got new doors in random places, but over 1000 more square space, and we never once needed a 'permit' for any sort. We had to compile with building code, presumably, though.
-David T. C.
Why I bother responding to this I have no idea, but the code was not 'spammed' all over usenet. It was put up on FTP. The entire Linux kernel has never been posted to usenet. But, of course, you knew this already.
-David T. C.
sarcasm, or a stupid person. ;)
-David T. C.
And it's the same thing with 'murder and intimidation'. Hey, idiot. Those aren't part of the 'drug trade'. Those are part of the 'lucrative illegal things trade'. Drugs, at the moment, fall under 'lucrative illegal things'. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I hate to be so insulting, but you haven't apparently thought this though at all. I would feel worse except you call the guy you were replying to a 'loser'.
Next you're going to claim that solictiting prositution causes murder, or blackmail causes murder. It's money+illegal activity that causes the violence, plain and simply.
-David T. C.
Ugh. Drinking beer and smoking pot at the same time. That's one of the best ways to die of alcohol poisoning .I can think of.
-David T. C.
Of course, all this is rather hypothetical, as stealing passwords from yourself is rather stupid. :)
And, if you really wanted too, you could just email the admin asking him to change it to a different one. :)
-David T. C.
What an odd comment. You mean, once someone is the user designed to be able to do anything to the system, they can do anything to the system? Far out.
Your comment really doesn't make any sense. Are you implying there are systems where having administrator/root/wheel level access doesn't let you take over the system? I think that's a bit of an oxymoron. If you have total access to the system, you can do anything, by defination.
BTW, there are things oout there that can restrict root...LIDS, for example, which uses capablities and other stuff. But that's just adding a level in the middle. Or you can use groups and setuid binaries on vanilla unix systems, or ACLs on NT. But, yeah, once you're root, you can do anything, just like if you have an administrator account on NT.
-David T. C.
Actually, it's .shs it hides, no matter what you do.
-David T. C.