uhhh...he did mention an alternative. That's what the 'perl and python' and 'perl or python' comments would indicate. Perhaps you read them differently. I know I often confuse commenting in favor of multiple languages with claiming that one of those languages is 'good enough'.;-)
Learn to live with that all you libertarian buddies
Is this the time to point out that corporations, and that which hs upheld the monopoly of these industries is government?
Is this the time to point out that corporations exist at the leisure of the government? That without the protection of the government, these corporations would be kept smaller by legal actions that they are currently immune to? Must be.
No, looking for 'schoolgirl.jpg' is not anywhere near a gaurantee that the seeker is a pedophile. Neither is 'littlegirls.jpg'. These types (and in the case of the latter, the explicit instance) are not only devoid of any indication of desire for sexual pictures of children, they are examples of names people use for their own pictures of family members. A family with daughters may very well have a picture of them titled 'littlegirls.jpg'.
After visiting the site, I noticed another alleged CP file 'mylittlesister.jpg' How do you justify this being an indicator of pedophilia? I have pictures of my children, a boy and a girl. I have filenames such as 'mylittlegirl', 'myfirstbath', and 'caughtonthetoilet'. Would you consider these pornographic titles indicative of pedophilia? In some cases (which I will not list here due to the obviousness fo them), the filename may be indicative, but some of the ones noted on this forum, and referred to specifically by yourself are not.
To assume that _any_ of these are indicative of pedophilia is not only absurd, it is quite telling.
Would you likewise assume that someone searching on the net for 'touchmyself' is looking for porn? If so, you make a very critical error. Especially given this is the title of a pop song from a few years back.
Perhaps a little introduction to searching would be in order. If you search for 'school girl', 'school', and 'girl' on a system like GNUTella, it will likely return 'schoolgirls.jpg'. Heck, searching for 'jpg' would as well.
Now, why is this important? Do you think they just came up with these names? Some, sure. But what about those that do not clearly indicate sexual nature or content, such as the two you chose 'schoolgirl.jpg' and 'littlegirls.jpg', not likely. My bet is they sat and watched the search list, and came up with adding these, for the sake of drawing traffic. IOW, they tried to meet what they tailored their empty content to meet what they watched.
This is no different than a company tailoring it's message on a mailing list or newsgroup. Lurk a bit, figure out what is going on, and adapt. Even further, they deliberately attempted to get people to 'fall into their trap'. If police do this, it is usually considered entrapment.
As far as the argument goes regarding the alleged shameful person, has the thought ever occured that perhaps some of them are actually law enforcement agents of investigators? Or perhaps other investigatory agencies private and public? Are these possibilities beyond your realm of acceptibility?
Having worked in the NOC of a national ISP, I can say that there is a lot of this latter activity going on. posting CP is against nearly all ISPs (I say nearly because I can't honestly say all) to provide CP, or use their services to aquire it. If there are reports of such activity taking place (there have been since this started), they are fully justified in verifying these complaints. Will you label them 'pedophiles' or 'people who should be investigated'? Given that some sysadmins and netadmins may peruse this site and block the IP's involved, this may consititute unlawful obstruction or interference in an investigation if it happens to be an investigator's IP. When questioned, the admin will point to this site. New can of worms gets opened.
Another note: Most surfers aren't using static IPs. So labelling it 'wall of shame' is not only a misnomer, it is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to see it. It takes investigation by an ISP to determine who _possibly_ may have had that IP, at that time. So where is the alleged shame? How can one be shamed if one cannot be identified on the 'wall of shame'.
I say _possibly_ above, due to such things as corporate and ISP firewalls, Masquerading, NAT, etc. It is not always possible to track down a user. Then we also have the can-o-worms known as IPSpoofing. Want to get an ISP/individual with a stayicIP on the list? Why not spoof the IP?
Yet another point or two...
In some countries it is legal to have these type of images. Like it or not, not everyone searching for various kinds of pornography is commiting a crime. AIUI, it is legal to possess these types of pictures in British Columbiai (Canada). In the Netherlands, it is legal to pose for pornography at the age of 14, in much of Europe, the age is 16. In Canada, the legal age fo consent for sex with a minor is 14, in other countries it is down to 12. Thus, pictures of 12-18 year old people in sexual contexts is legal in various parts of the world. Remeber as well, that eighTEEN and nineTEEN year olds are both 'teens', and 'legal' in the US.
While on that subject, do you even know what pedophilia is? Is it sexual attraction to under-age people? If so, then yo uwould have to have never been sexually attracted to one under the age of X (where X is 18 in the US, and clearly other ages in other countries). This would include when you yourself were under that age.
But pedophilia as clinically defined is not what people here seem to think it is. Pedophilia 'is the chronic sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children'. There is no fixed age limit. It is usually accepted that the sexual attraction to a young person that presents signs of puberty (breasts in women, and pubic hair in both men and women) is not considered clinical pedophilia.
So, could this not be just a big marketing ploy? A trick to get people to their site? Certainly something to think about. Certainly a cheap way to get 'advertising' on/., MSNBC.com, etc.
Could it be a different kind of ploy? Have you considered that some of these 'titles' are the same as 'legal pornography' picture titles? If you insist that someone is looking for pornography when looking for 'schoolgirl.jpg', and that it must be child pornography is to demonstrate a very narrow concept. How about an adult pornstar playing the role of a collegegirl in a college uniform? Certainly qualifies as a 'schoolgirl', and not requiring any children be implied or involved.
Do you know how little, by way of comparison to the claims, child pornography is actually 'traded' over the internet? Could this be a scare tactic, designed to bring more support for such attempts to control the Internet as the CDA? Another possibility.
Zope is used my a respectable number of sites, that we can verify anyway. Netcraft only reports the servers running straight Zope(Zserver), and not the cases where Zope runs behind another server. In the measured category, it tops Roxen (which may be underreported due to the config option to change the Server string) on their list of.coms in March ( March Report on Zope in.com ) Zope is quite a powerful system, content management is one of the key aspects of it. I run it in conjunction with Roxen, and it provides for a good platform.
The PTK (Portal ToolKit) is coming along nicely, and makes for a very nice, easy to use platform.
If you try it, do try to remember the recommendation that complicated logic should be done in Python, not DTML. The D in DTML does not stand for 'Dynamic', it stands for Document. DTML is a Document Template Markup Language. Python is for programming. Keeping this in mind will significantly help you keep your sanity.
There is a significant difference between being a monopoly, and being an abusive monopoly. A review of the documents will reveal that the charges are 'abuse of power', not 'posession of power'.
That said, there is more to being a monopoly than having the largest market share.
If I want to use KSQL (a KDE SQL Client formerly known as KMySQL), I have to install kdelibs at the very least. That package contains such libraries as khtml, a HTML rendering KPart.
Is this an artificial requirement? KSQL is not a web browser, after all!"
Big difference: you aren't installing an application when you install the kde libraries.
Now, if you were required to install a KDE webbrowser (whatever it is called these days), you may have a valid analogy. Besides, it is at least possible to compile KSQL statically, thus eliminating the need for the KDE libraries, is it not?
BTW, I agree with your comments on abandoning version numbers.
"the right to bear arms" is a general phrase in the Constitution accepted to mean the right to arm ourselves with weapons of defense, and Congress, through legislation, determines what we can arm ourselves with.
Not true. First, it is not a 'general phrase', it is a very specific phrase.
Second, a literary analysis of the 2nd Amemndment reveals that
the right pre-exists govt.
congress shall make law abridging
Thus, since the right is not granted by govt', they cannot remove it. Since congress (aka the govt.) cannot make laws that abridge it, they cannot determine 'what we can arm ourselves with', as that, by definition, is abridging it.
Thus, laws preventing you from owning arms (in America), are in violation of the US Constitution, and a violation of your rights.
As an aquaintance once put it, where was all the return fire from the handgun owners in all those MacDonald's shootings?
There wasn't any; due to supposed gun control, the owners weren't allowed to carry them with them.
Of course, you (or your aquaintance) could list many instancers where there was no return fire, or no threat of it. Equally true, every instance can be countered by one where the presence of armed person(s) prevented or cut short such incidents; and these episodes of defense outnumber the unnoposed.
If you think non-auto rifles and shotguns are 'bloody hard to conceal', you are quite mistaken.
Drive-by shootings, BTW, are rarely done by the driver, rather they are done by passengers. Which makes your reference basically moot.
bad anology, really.. guns and marijuana are physical objects. they take up space, and they have to be physically transported from one place to another. You can't "copy" a gun. i guess what i'm trying to say here is, smuggling software from point A to point B is totally effortless. Smuggling guns or drugs is different since it actually requires some amount of effort. If you know someone 20 yards away on the other side of the border is carrying weed you can stop them from crossing the border with it, by physically blocking their path if neccicary, but if they're sitting 20 yards across the border with a computer and telnet you can't stop them from getting a copy of PGP.
I think if you carry your counterpoint to the conclusion, you will see more sense in the original post. Correct, guns, weed, etc. are physical objects. They can be physically stopped.
However, we haven't been able to. Drugs still wind up in penitentiaries fer cryin out loud. If we can't stop these, how the hell can we assume we can stop data?
What else do you call stamping it cds and mailing it to people, if not distibution? Remember that distribution is a verb as well, and that is what the GPL refers to, not a distribution. And, unless the source was on the cds they shipped, they did distribute without source.
Corel can copyright their collection (the whole list of programs that make up Corel Linux) without affecting the copyrights of the individual programs involved. You are still free to copy any individual programs and distribute them as the individual licenses see fit. ==================================================
Not neccessarily. A collection is a derived work, and as such, specifically covered in the GPL. Whether or not the copyrights of the individual authors of the software in the referenced case was consulted or not would make a difference.
>>Okay, I'll correct you. You are 100% wrong about >>this. >Sorry about that. I DID try out the original BO, >though, and it was certainly like that. >The truth is that no matter what the press >releases say, you know that you're not going >find any large networks administered by Back >Orifice soon. There's no need to go into >details; that knowledge is enough to prove that >it isn't legitimate network management software.
Sorry, but that is an assumption you are making, or at best, a prediction. Besides, whether or not something is used for a purpose is not the deciding factor (nor even relevant) to whether or not it is a legitimate use of it.
I think you are really misreading the above statements. People are not posting they want it for free. They are saying they don't want to have to spend ~50$ on a win9x version and ~50$ on a Linux version.
I can tell you right now, that as a mvie, it was quite good. But for a Star Wars movie, it was less than acceptable.
It was slow to prgress, likely due to all the 'cutsie' stuff, and attempts at being overly-funny. While I would see it again, it is not up to snuff for a Star Wars release. The story is gone, replaced by Disneyisms.
A JFS is not as great as the marketing droids have put it out to be. You might want to define you claim of 'alpha' form for the various SA tools fo rlinux. Last I looked, both YaST and LinuxConf are quite outstanding, and quite comprehensive.
I use the latter to manage quite a network of Linux boxen, from a single point. It also has several forms of gui, form command line (where it can be scripted for automation, etc), curses for text mode, bottons for use in X, and an HTML mode for use in your favourite browser.
SMP scalability? In the tests I have seen and participated in, Linux has beaten NT many times, it all depends upon your task. And NT has a _long_ way to go to.
Given that this test is for *server* environments, what the heck does USB have to do with it?
The best thing we can do in support of these tests is to remember the focus of it.
BTW, SPECweb tests are usually done with unrealistic settings, like, oh, say large Frame Sizes, and behind a proxy server. This results in testing of the proxy server, not the webserver.
While I am on the subject of what is being tested, I feel I must reiterate that if you want to compare the speed of the OS, you need to minimize the variables; especially the large ones. yes, that means you need to run the same web server on both OSes. Failure to do so, is to test a combination, rather than an OS.
How can you state that anti-polygamy laws don't limit your marriage rights, while laws against same-sex marriages do?
Polygamy is not even a religous issue in the lawbooks, even though the previous poster used that argument. There is absolutely no constitional basid for anti-polygamy laws.
Regarding you argument against polygamy being a religious right: your counter agrument of human sacrifice is irrelevant. Human sacrifice involves the intentional harming of another human life. While some of us may rhetorically feel otherwise, marriages (regardless of the numbers of people invovled) do not. The analogy does not hold.
Regardless of whether or not a church sanctioned it or not, a triganamous marriage is simply illegal in many (all?) states.
Additionaly, the point was not about what was legal but how it (it being crypto distribution) could be suppressed.
Slashdot Mirror
uhhh...he did mention an alternative. That's what the 'perl and python' and 'perl or python' comments would indicate. Perhaps you read them differently. I know I often confuse commenting in favor of multiple languages with claiming that one of those languages is 'good enough'. ;-)
No Lamba? Thank you for playing, please try again.
Is this the time to point out that corporations, and that which hs upheld the monopoly of these industries is government?
Is this the time to point out that corporations exist at the leisure of the government? That without the protection of the government, these corporations would be kept smaller by legal actions that they are currently immune to? Must be.
No, looking for 'schoolgirl.jpg' is not anywhere near a gaurantee that the seeker is a pedophile. Neither is 'littlegirls.jpg'. These types (and in the case of the latter, the explicit instance) are not only devoid of any indication of desire for sexual pictures of children, they are examples of names people use for their own pictures of family members. A family with daughters may very well have a picture of them titled 'littlegirls.jpg'.
/., MSNBC.com, etc.
After visiting the site, I noticed another alleged CP file 'mylittlesister.jpg' How do you justify this being an indicator of pedophilia? I have pictures of my children, a boy and a girl. I have filenames such as 'mylittlegirl', 'myfirstbath', and 'caughtonthetoilet'. Would you consider these pornographic titles indicative of pedophilia? In some cases (which I will not list here due to the obviousness fo them), the filename may be indicative, but some of the ones noted on this forum, and referred to specifically by yourself are not.
To assume that _any_ of these are indicative of pedophilia is not only absurd, it is quite telling.
Would you likewise assume that someone searching on the net for 'touchmyself' is looking for porn? If so, you make a very critical error. Especially given this is the title of a pop song from a few years back.
Perhaps a little introduction to searching would be in order. If you search for 'school girl', 'school', and 'girl' on a system like GNUTella, it will likely return 'schoolgirls.jpg'. Heck, searching for 'jpg' would as well.
Now, why is this important? Do you think they just came up with these names? Some, sure. But what about those that do not clearly indicate sexual nature or content, such as the two you chose 'schoolgirl.jpg' and 'littlegirls.jpg', not likely. My bet is they sat and watched the search list, and came up with adding these, for the sake of drawing traffic. IOW, they tried to meet what they tailored their empty content to meet what they watched.
This is no different than a company tailoring it's message on a mailing list or newsgroup. Lurk a bit, figure out what is going on, and adapt. Even further, they deliberately attempted to get people to 'fall into their trap'. If police do this, it is usually considered entrapment.
As far as the argument goes regarding the alleged shameful person, has the thought ever occured that perhaps some of them are actually law enforcement agents of investigators? Or perhaps other investigatory agencies private and public? Are these possibilities beyond your realm of acceptibility?
Having worked in the NOC of a national ISP, I can say that there is a lot of this latter activity going on. posting CP is against nearly all ISPs (I say nearly because I can't honestly say all) to provide CP, or use their services to aquire it. If there are reports of such activity taking place (there have been since this started), they are fully justified in verifying these complaints. Will you label them 'pedophiles' or 'people who should be investigated'? Given that some sysadmins and netadmins may peruse this site and block the IP's involved, this may consititute unlawful obstruction or interference in an investigation if it happens to be an investigator's IP. When questioned, the admin will point to this site. New can of worms gets opened.
Another note:
Most surfers aren't using static IPs. So labelling it 'wall of shame' is not only a misnomer, it is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to see it. It takes investigation by an ISP to determine who _possibly_ may have had that IP, at that time. So where is the alleged shame? How can one be shamed if one cannot be identified on the 'wall of shame'.
I say _possibly_ above, due to such things as corporate and ISP firewalls, Masquerading, NAT, etc. It is not always possible to track down a user. Then we also have the can-o-worms known as IPSpoofing. Want to get an ISP/individual with a stayicIP on the list? Why not spoof the IP?
Yet another point or two...
In some countries it is legal to have these type of images. Like it or not, not everyone searching for various kinds of pornography is commiting a crime. AIUI, it is legal to possess these types of pictures in British Columbiai (Canada). In the Netherlands, it is legal to pose for pornography at the age of 14, in much of Europe, the age is 16. In Canada, the legal age fo consent for sex with a minor is 14, in other countries it is down to 12. Thus, pictures of 12-18 year old people in sexual contexts is legal in various parts of the world. Remeber as well, that eighTEEN and nineTEEN year olds are both 'teens', and 'legal' in the US.
While on that subject, do you even know what pedophilia is? Is it sexual attraction to under-age people? If so, then yo uwould have to have never been sexually attracted to one under the age of X (where X is 18 in the US, and clearly other ages in other countries). This would include when you yourself were under that age.
But pedophilia as clinically defined is not what people here seem to think it is. Pedophilia 'is the chronic sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children'. There is no fixed age limit. It is usually accepted that the sexual attraction to a young person that presents signs of puberty (breasts in women, and pubic hair in both men and women) is not considered clinical pedophilia.
So, could this not be just a big marketing ploy? A trick to get people to their site? Certainly something to think about. Certainly a cheap way to get 'advertising' on
Could it be a different kind of ploy? Have you considered that some of these 'titles' are the same as 'legal pornography' picture titles? If you insist that someone is looking for pornography when looking for 'schoolgirl.jpg', and that it must be child pornography is to demonstrate a very narrow concept. How about an adult pornstar playing the role of a collegegirl in a college uniform? Certainly qualifies as a 'schoolgirl', and not requiring any children be implied or involved.
Do you know how little, by way of comparison to the claims, child pornography is actually 'traded' over the internet? Could this be a scare tactic, designed to bring more support for such attempts to control the Internet as the CDA? Another possibility.
Zope is used my a respectable number of sites, that we can verify anyway. Netcraft only reports the servers running straight Zope(Zserver), and not the cases where Zope runs behind another server. In the measured category, it tops Roxen (which may be underreported due to the config option to change the Server string) on their list of .coms in March ( March Report on Zope in .com ) Zope is quite a powerful system, content management is one of the key aspects of it. I run it in conjunction with Roxen, and it provides for a good platform.
The PTK (Portal ToolKit) is coming along nicely, and makes for a very nice, easy to use platform.
If you try it, do try to remember the recommendation that complicated logic should be done in Python, not DTML. The D in DTML does not stand for 'Dynamic', it stands for Document. DTML is a Document Template Markup Language. Python is for programming. Keeping this in mind will significantly help you keep your sanity.
There is a significant difference between being a monopoly, and being an abusive monopoly. A review of the documents will reveal that the charges are 'abuse of power', not 'posession of power'.
That said, there is more to being a monopoly than having the largest market share.
If I want to use KSQL (a KDE SQL Client formerly known as KMySQL), I have to install kdelibs at the very least. That package contains such libraries as khtml, a HTML rendering KPart.
Is this an artificial requirement? KSQL is not a web browser, after all!"
Big difference: you aren't installing an application when you install the kde libraries.
Now, if you were required to install a KDE webbrowser (whatever it is called these days), you may have a valid analogy. Besides, it is at least possible to compile KSQL statically, thus eliminating the need for the KDE libraries, is it not?
BTW, I agree with your comments on abandoning version numbers.
Bill
Not true. First, it is not a 'general phrase', it is a very specific phrase.
Second, a literary analysis of the 2nd Amemndment reveals that
Thus, since the right is not granted by govt', they cannot remove it. Since congress (aka the govt.) cannot make laws that abridge it, they cannot determine 'what we can arm ourselves with', as that, by definition, is abridging it.
Thus, laws preventing you from owning arms (in America), are in violation of the US Constitution, and a violation of your rights.
There wasn't any; due to supposed gun control, the owners weren't allowed to carry them with them.
Of course, you (or your aquaintance) could list many instancers where there was no return fire, or no threat of it. Equally true, every instance can be countered by one where the presence of armed person(s) prevented or cut short such incidents; and these episodes of defense outnumber the unnoposed.
If you think non-auto rifles and shotguns are 'bloody hard to conceal', you are quite mistaken.
Drive-by shootings, BTW, are rarely done by the driver, rather they are done by passengers. Which makes your reference basically moot.
Bill
Well, as a first step, you could use the --justdb option to rpm, which updates the rpm database without installing anything.
You can download and install IE5 seperately too. According to MS it is still 'integrated' and a part of the OS.
It is pretty fast from where I see it, both at home and at work. Perhaps there are network issues between where you are, and where Zope.org sits?
I think if you carry your counterpoint to the conclusion, you will see more sense in the original post. Correct, guns, weed, etc. are physical objects. They can be physically stopped.
However, we haven't been able to. Drugs still wind up in penitentiaries fer cryin out loud. If we can't stop these, how the hell can we assume we can stop data?
So, if I collect Windows98 and Windows95 onto a cd, I can perfectly legally copyright it, and distribute it ... the collection that is, right?
The catch is, the Corel 'nda' is claiming copyright over the individual components.
I gaurantee you, that if Corel, IBM, Whomever, were to take the above action, MS would have them in court so fast their heads would spin.
What else do you call stamping it cds and mailing it to people, if not distibution? Remember that distribution is a verb as well, and that is what the GPL refers to, not a distribution. And, unless the source was on the cds they shipped, they did distribute without source.
>IBM uses BSD in its Thin clients/InterJet, and Apple in Mac OS X, IP Routers use BSD. And on and on.
... and GPL with Apache ...
Not neccessarily. A collection is a derived work, and as such, specifically covered in the GPL. Whether or not the copyrights of the individual authors of the software in the referenced case was consulted or not would make a difference.
Sorry, but that is an assumption you are making, or at best, a prediction. Besides, whether or not something is used for a purpose is not the deciding factor (nor even relevant) to whether or not it is a legitimate use of it.
I think you are really misreading the above statements. People are not posting they want it for free. They are saying they don't want to have to spend ~50$ on a win9x version and ~50$ on a Linux version.
There is a vast difference between the two.
A constitutional Amendment would not overrule them, provided they do their jobs.
Instead the commander-in-teeth would write up another executive order.
Well, I have seen it.
I can tell you right now, that as a mvie, it was quite good. But for a Star Wars movie, it was less than acceptable.
It was slow to prgress, likely due to all the 'cutsie' stuff, and attempts at being overly-funny. While I would see it again, it is not up to snuff for a Star Wars release. The story is gone, replaced by Disneyisms.
A JFS is not as great as the marketing droids have put it out to be. You might want to define you claim of 'alpha' form for the various SA tools fo rlinux. Last I looked, both YaST and LinuxConf are quite outstanding, and quite comprehensive.
I use the latter to manage quite a network of Linux boxen, from a single point. It also has several forms of gui, form command line (where it can be scripted for automation, etc), curses for text mode, bottons for use in X, and an HTML mode for use in your favourite browser.
SMP scalability? In the tests I have seen and participated in, Linux has beaten NT many times, it all depends upon your task. And NT has a _long_ way to go to.
Given that this test is for *server* environments, what the heck does USB have to do with it?
The best thing we can do in support of these tests is to remember the focus of it.
BTW, SPECweb tests are usually done with unrealistic settings, like, oh, say large Frame Sizes, and behind a proxy server. This results in testing of the proxy server, not the webserver.
While I am on the subject of what is being tested, I feel I must reiterate that if you want to compare the speed of the OS, you need to minimize the variables; especially the large ones. yes, that means you need to run the same web server on both OSes. Failure to do so, is to test a combination, rather than an OS.
How can you state that anti-polygamy laws don't limit your marriage rights, while laws against same-sex marriages do?
Polygamy is not even a religous issue in the lawbooks, even though the previous poster used that argument. There is absolutely no constitional basid for anti-polygamy laws.
Regarding you argument against polygamy being a religious right: your counter agrument of human sacrifice is irrelevant. Human sacrifice involves the intentional harming of another human life. While some of us may rhetorically feel otherwise, marriages (regardless of the numbers of people invovled) do not. The analogy does not hold.
Regardless of whether or not a church sanctioned it or not, a triganamous marriage is simply illegal in many (all?) states.
Additionaly, the point was not about what was legal but how it (it being crypto distribution) could be suppressed.
Is it a long O or a short O? ;-)
Around here, though, it is said: "Need to stop at the ATM".