How the hell can that be considered redundant? Some troll must be pissed off that they didn't get a FP. First post, but not a karma whoring one; it's a valid statement. Eh, whatever.
> in no way suggests that one has a right to put oneself in danger, > nor does it suggest that [it] should be outlawed
That seems somewhat, albeit not entirely, contradictory. If something is not illegal, I therefore have the legal "right" to do it. Perhaps we are using different meanings of "right."
> In many places, it is illegal to threaten a lawsuit if you have no intention of following through
Just choose your words carefully; try "I'm considering a lawsuit" or "This shit makes me want to call a lawyer" instead of "I'll see your ass in court, jerkwad!" It's very difficult to divine someone's intention unless that intention was followed through.
> He/His are appropriate usage for a person of unspecified or neutral gender.
Guess you missed the 1990s... You must always replace He with He/she/it/that/thing/whatever. Otherwise you'd never hear the end about your "insensitivity to the plight of wymyn and transsexuals."
> If you're still under the impression that you have ANY degree of control over your life, GROW UP and learn the ugly truth.
I find it funny that you protray the extreme opposite of youthful idealism. You are so clouded by hate and/or cynicism that you assume everyone else is too. I find myself feeling that way at times, but I usually recognize it as unreasonable. Also, suggesting that we DON'T have any control over our lives is to give in to self-victimization.
At least now I know why I still smoke cigarettes: I don't have any control. That guy raped that little girl because he didn't have any control. I don't want to cetegorize you unfairly, but you remind me of some extreme Christians who try to put EVERYTHING in the "hands of God" and as such, their children are not better than they "which is generally the goal in raising (planned, usually unplanned too) children."
> call me stupid, but isn't that what her job supposed to be, protecting the library?
Uh... no, her job is to help people check out books and other such things, her job is not protection. This is not to say that I think she did anything wrong, I support her fully, as long as the information reported is correct (I have no reason to believe it isn't).
> They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to prevent other officers from breaking the law.
Oops, no. They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to make it known when other officers from breaking the law. They can't prevent something if they don't know about it, but they can raise hell after the fact.
> Please don't lump all cops together in one group. Prejudice against any group is unfair to INDIVIDUALS.
Those individuals are supposedly in the business of protecting the public. Yet when they see other cops violating rights, do they say anything? If not, they are just as guilty as the officer violating the rights.
And before anyone brings up the fact that there are no laws forcing people to be good-samaritans, these are police officers we are talking about. They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to prevent other officers from breaking the law.
> When a kid is a jerk - should I call the police?
If he broke a crime, yes. If he's just being a jerk, calling the police is horribly outrageous.
> I'd hate to trample on his rights by directly addressing his irresponsibility....
HIS irresponsibility??? WHAT ABOUT THE PARENTS' IRRESPONSIBILITY IN RAISING A LITTLE ASSHOLE??? That has nothing to do with the police and is a terrible (and completely unrelated) "argument."
The library doesn't know that your wife just started divorce proceedings and you are trying to find reasons to blame her and make her look like a horrible parent, so that you can keep custody of your kids...
> "This would be the digital equivalent of a drive-by shooting,"
Umm.... More like sitting on a corner with your gun in hand, waiting for a Red Pontiac Grand Am to Drive by. Of course, we don't know what model was affected, so it could be "any American car," or it could be "Lavender Peugots"
By client, I am referring to the "Netware Client" which, in Windows, replaces the windows login box ("Press Ctrl-Alt-Del"). That way you can just log into the server with eDirectory credentials and do whatever you need to do... I suppose it's not a huge deal, but it's just one of many details.
> It looks like [Messman's] been blamed for Novell's poor performance in the Linux space versus Red Hat.
Well, I'll bet they were hoping their GroupWise software being ported to Linux would have helped. And it would have, had they done it properly. I tried three times to get that damned thing running on SuSE Enterprise 9, and it's the biggest pain in the ass. I've set up Email servers before with no problem, this was absolutely horrid. At first I blamed the product in general, but after installing it on Windows 2003 I realized that it was actually incomplete! The NetWare client for it does not exist (at least on any of the CDs they gave us -- which were incomplete in & of themselves), and trying to actually manage the thing can be a huge pain in the ass.
They still sell it at full price and still charge $300 for a single support case... It's like MS taking Vista as it is now and selling it as a fully-working product. It is not, and I would have been highly pissed off had our software license not covered the GroupWise software for whichever of the three platforms (Lin, Win, NetWare) we ended up using.
So anyway, unless Messman forced the product out before it was done, it was not his fault. Of course, Novell does more than just Email servers, so this may be only a very small part of it.
> Your user access idea of download information from LDAP or ActiveDirectory sounds pretty scary
I'm not entirely sure that's what he means, although I can't say for sure, since I don't know him. What I have done with Access DB "security" is to change the file permissions to reflect the AD users who can access it. IIS is set to deny anonymous access and use "Windows Integrated Authentication." As long as the people visiting the site are on domain PCs and are logged in, the authentication is automatic (if using Firefox, after changing 2 NTLM options). Of course, there are always idiots who stay logged in while they walk away from "public" PCs. Only so much you can do about that.
Does anyone know of security risks doing it this way? I am certainly not a security expert, but neither are any of our users... so far (and the network is inaccessible from the Internet).
I'm not sure that's the same thing I'm referring to, but let's assume for a second that it is. Do they allow other noncompeting students to run alongside? What if they are on the Freshman team but all their friends were on varsity? Should they have the right to run/roll alongside their friends? Why is this ONE person allowed to do something that others are not? Because she is in a wheelchair and the school wanted to avoid a disability discrimination lawsuit: not because she was right. It's still bullshit.
"That's all I wanted, to be a part of everything."
No one gets to be a part of "everything" and using the courts to force others to include you into things in which you are not qualified to participate is dirty, dirty, dirty. At the moment, I can't even think of the appropriate words to express that feeling. Using the courts for personal gain, as opposed to real justice, is total scumbaggery.
I want to be able to participate in the Olympics, yet I am not qualified. I should sue the IOC to -- at the very least -- let me walk onto the playing field to be with my "friends," the American atheletes. And I suppose by heritage, the Welsh too, but the Americans seem to win a few more gold medals...
> Would you so happily say that sort of thing to her face? I think not...
If she got all high and mighty in my face, sure I would. If she tried to defend her actions and didn't do a very good job of it, yes. If she explained herself in a way that was not explained in the articles I read and I found out the story wasn't right and she WASN'T suing her school to do something physically impossible, then I would apologize.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell can that be considered redundant? Some troll must be pissed off that they didn't get a FP. First post, but not a karma whoring one; it's a valid statement. Eh, whatever.
The only thing that can destroy Open Source is if people stop writing Open Source Software.
> You don't have a right to drive a car, for example.
;)
Within the confines of existing law, I do. If I were driving a car outside those laws, I would not be doing so legally, would I
Maybe I'm leaning my premise on funky semantics, but I'm not entirely sure I'm wrong.
> in no way suggests that one has a right to put oneself in danger,
> nor does it suggest that [it] should be outlawed
That seems somewhat, albeit not entirely, contradictory. If something is not illegal, I therefore have the legal "right" to do it. Perhaps we are using different meanings of "right."
I hear you. I'm not gonna throw away the things I learned just because some person has found some infantile way to be offended by it.
> In many places, it is illegal to threaten a lawsuit if you have no intention of following through
Just choose your words carefully; try "I'm considering a lawsuit" or "This shit makes me want to call a lawyer" instead of "I'll see your ass in court, jerkwad!" It's very difficult to divine someone's intention unless that intention was followed through.
> A woman named Cliff?
Funny, but Cliff posted the message on the site, he wasn't the author. "2bepissedoff" is the person who wrote it.
> He/His are appropriate usage for a person of unspecified or neutral gender.
Guess you missed the 1990s... You must always replace He with He/she/it/that/thing/whatever. Otherwise you'd never hear the end about your "insensitivity to the plight of wymyn and transsexuals."
> If you're still under the impression that you have ANY degree of control over your life, GROW UP and learn the ugly truth.
I find it funny that you protray the extreme opposite of youthful idealism. You are so clouded by hate and/or cynicism that you assume everyone else is too. I find myself feeling that way at times, but I usually recognize it as unreasonable. Also, suggesting that we DON'T have any control over our lives is to give in to self-victimization.
At least now I know why I still smoke cigarettes: I don't have any control. That guy raped that little girl because he didn't have any control. I don't want to cetegorize you unfairly, but you remind me of some extreme Christians who try to put EVERYTHING in the "hands of God" and as such, their children are not better than they "which is generally the goal in raising (planned, usually unplanned too) children."
> call me stupid, but isn't that what her job supposed to be, protecting the library?
Uh... no, her job is to help people check out books and other such things, her job is not protection. This is not to say that I think she did anything wrong, I support her fully, as long as the information reported is correct (I have no reason to believe it isn't).
> The problem isn't her. The problem is that the police cannot obtain a warrant fast enough.
They had a subpeons THE SAME DAY. I'd say that's pretty damned fast.
> Hm. I think there's a flaw somewhere in my argument, but I just can't put my thumb on it...
Ooh, it's that your argument has no bearing on the parent statement, right? Did you have a point, or are you a Neocon?
> They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to prevent other officers from breaking the law.
Oops, no. They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to make it known when other officers from breaking the law. They can't prevent something if they don't know about it, but they can raise hell after the fact.
> Please don't lump all cops together in one group. Prejudice against any group is unfair to INDIVIDUALS.
Those individuals are supposedly in the business of protecting the public. Yet when they see other cops violating rights, do they say anything? If not, they are just as guilty as the officer violating the rights.
And before anyone brings up the fact that there are no laws forcing people to be good-samaritans, these are police officers we are talking about. They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to prevent other officers from breaking the law.
> When a kid is a jerk - should I call the police?
If he broke a crime, yes. If he's just being a jerk, calling the police is horribly outrageous.
> I'd hate to trample on his rights by directly addressing his irresponsibility....
HIS irresponsibility??? WHAT ABOUT THE PARENTS' IRRESPONSIBILITY IN RAISING A LITTLE ASSHOLE??? That has nothing to do with the police and is a terrible (and completely unrelated) "argument."
> The library policy is pointless.
The library doesn't know that your wife just started divorce proceedings and you are trying to find reasons to blame her and make her look like a horrible parent, so that you can keep custody of your kids...
> I didn't know that the regulation extended to mandatory training in hostage negotiation
In a case like that, I'd prefer the hostage taker be shot dead over trying to chat with him.
> You do not have the right to be in danger.
Then there are a WHOLE LOT of companies specializing in "Extreme Sports" that will be out of business once they receive that memo...
> "This would be the digital equivalent of a drive-by shooting,"
Umm.... More like sitting on a corner with your gun in hand, waiting for a Red Pontiac Grand Am to Drive by. Of course, we don't know what model was affected, so it could be "any American car," or it could be "Lavender Peugots"
By client, I am referring to the "Netware Client" which, in Windows, replaces the windows login box ("Press Ctrl-Alt-Del"). That way you can just log into the server with eDirectory credentials and do whatever you need to do... I suppose it's not a huge deal, but it's just one of many details.
> It looks like [Messman's] been blamed for Novell's poor performance in the Linux space versus Red Hat.
Well, I'll bet they were hoping their GroupWise software being ported to Linux would have helped. And it would have, had they done it properly. I tried three times to get that damned thing running on SuSE Enterprise 9, and it's the biggest pain in the ass. I've set up Email servers before with no problem, this was absolutely horrid. At first I blamed the product in general, but after installing it on Windows 2003 I realized that it was actually incomplete! The NetWare client for it does not exist (at least on any of the CDs they gave us -- which were incomplete in & of themselves), and trying to actually manage the thing can be a huge pain in the ass.
They still sell it at full price and still charge $300 for a single support case... It's like MS taking Vista as it is now and selling it as a fully-working product. It is not, and I would have been highly pissed off had our software license not covered the GroupWise software for whichever of the three platforms (Lin, Win, NetWare) we ended up using.
So anyway, unless Messman forced the product out before it was done, it was not his fault. Of course, Novell does more than just Email servers, so this may be only a very small part of it.
> Your user access idea of download information from LDAP or ActiveDirectory sounds pretty scary
I'm not entirely sure that's what he means, although I can't say for sure, since I don't know him. What I have done with Access DB "security" is to change the file permissions to reflect the AD users who can access it. IIS is set to deny anonymous access and use "Windows Integrated Authentication." As long as the people visiting the site are on domain PCs and are logged in, the authentication is automatic (if using Firefox, after changing 2 NTLM options). Of course, there are always idiots who stay logged in while they walk away from "public" PCs. Only so much you can do about that.
Does anyone know of security risks doing it this way? I am certainly not a security expert, but neither are any of our users... so far (and the network is inaccessible from the Internet).
Pardon my presumption. Obviously, I've never been to Los Angeles County. :)
I'm not sure that's the same thing I'm referring to, but let's assume for a second that it is. Do they allow other noncompeting students to run alongside? What if they are on the Freshman team but all their friends were on varsity? Should they have the right to run/roll alongside their friends? Why is this ONE person allowed to do something that others are not? Because she is in a wheelchair and the school wanted to avoid a disability discrimination lawsuit: not because she was right. It's still bullshit.
"That's all I wanted, to be a part of everything."
No one gets to be a part of "everything" and using the courts to force others to include you into things in which you are not qualified to participate is dirty, dirty, dirty. At the moment, I can't even think of the appropriate words to express that feeling. Using the courts for personal gain, as opposed to real justice, is total scumbaggery.
I want to be able to participate in the Olympics, yet I am not qualified. I should sue the IOC to -- at the very least -- let me walk onto the playing field to be with my "friends," the American atheletes. And I suppose by heritage, the Welsh too, but the Americans seem to win a few more gold medals...
> Would you so happily say that sort of thing to her face? I think not...
If she got all high and mighty in my face, sure I would. If she tried to defend her actions and didn't do a very good job of it, yes. If she explained herself in a way that was not explained in the articles I read and I found out the story wasn't right and she WASN'T suing her school to do something physically impossible, then I would apologize.