I'm not sure what he means either. However, I suspect that SecureCRT does what he wants. You can configure a login script to run when you connect, within which you can set up shell aliases. You can run scripts manually, within which you can do whatever you like, and you can configure keys to send whatever strings you like. One of these should cover whatever it is that he's asking how to do.
If you want to change it, you are likewise free to break out the soldering iron and figure it out for yourself.
No, you're not. Not if you live in the US, anyway. Doing so is illegal under the DMCA. You can go to jail for breaking out your soldering iron or your data probe or your debugger on hardware that you purchased and own.
That's why some people feel that GPL 3 restrictions forbidding the code to be run on such hardware is appropriate.
First, Google's fiber doesn't do them any good in this situation unless they're also your ISP. Google might have a five inch water line running through your town but if you connect to it via a 1/2" water hose it's all irrelevant to you. If your ISP is Verizon or Comcast or whomever, and they throttle your traffic to Google, Google is going to be slow on your machine no matter how much fiber they have.
Certainly, there's the possibility that if Verizon throttles your connection and Comcast doesn't, you'll switch to Comcast. But if Yahoo pays Verizon not to throttle their data and Google doesn't, is the average user (ie a non-/. reading, doesn't know the difference between ram and hard drive space, still uses IE 5.0, etc) going to know to switch to Comcast or are they simply going to see that Yahoo is snappy and Google is slow, so use Yahoo? I suspect a bit of both will happen, and unless Verizon loses enough customers that they're losing more money than Yahoo is paying them, Verizon is still going to come out ahead.
(Names used here are just examples and not meant to indicate that one company is better than the other.)
It is NOT Microsoft's job, or any other corporation, to decide what laws they should and should not obey.
But that's exactly what they did here. They decided that, on their servers here in America, they should honor laws in another country that violate US, UN and every other legitimate standard of human rights.
A global corporation will be expected to enforce local laws of nationals who are using its service....
In the absense of US law then they are required to follow local law and that is as it should be.
Horsefeathers. In some countries, it's illegal for women to seek an education. Is it your contention that all information sites are responsible for identifying women from such countries and refusing to allow them to access their site?
If MS had servers located in China, then you might very well be right. If you're IN a country, you follow that countries laws or face the consequences. MS wasn't in their country. Their laws are not binding here. MS choose to censor someone so that they would not risk offending the Chinese government.
the American people can feel free to elect leaders that will require US multinationals to treat every person on earth as though they are US citizens. If that were the case then MS would not only not have to obey the Chinese government but they'd be breaking the law if they did.
Actually, rightly or wrongly, America already has laws against discrimination. If the blogger were here and able to file a lawsuit against MS, he'd very likely have a strong case that MS was discriminating against Chinese nationals. But of course there's little danger of MS having to face that. The person in question is in a distant country and already facing persecution from his government. Filing a lawsuit against MS probably isn't very high on his agenda.
Personally, I don't think MS should face any legal repercussions for what they did. It's MS's server, and MS should have the right to refuse to do business with anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose. But having a right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it. US citizens have the right to join the KKK but that doesn't justify doing so. MS deserves to be soundly and publically lambasted for what they did. MS should have a right to deny controversial Chinese bloggers access to their servers. But I also have a right to tell them that I think they're a piece of crap for doing so.
Did you bother to RTFA? Questions still remain over why a site believed to be hosted in the United States has to comply with Chinese law.
If the blog were hosted in China, then Chinese law might be applicable. The 'blog was hosted here. MS took it upon themselves to delete the 'blog so the Chinese government wouldn't be offended. By your logic, nothing other than Disney should be hosted on the Internet, since it might be against the law somewhere. Your "don't pay taxes" scenario is silly because it's not at all the same situation - MS is under no obligation to obey Chinese law on servers located in the US.
I haven't used AIM in quite some time but I don't believe it has file sharing of the type in question. You can certainly send a file to someone over AIM but it's a manual process that you have to initiate. You can't set up shared folders where you can dump all of your photos and any of your buddies can browse them. Of course, setting up a folder with all of your commercial music available to all of your buddies would be a copyright violation, so that won't happen but I'm sure clever users will come up with other, legal uses for the capability. Also, to the best of my knowledge, AIM isn't a Bit Torrent client. Your comment is like saying that ICQ wasn't a killer app in its day because you could already exchange messages with people via email.
Far be it from me to defend the man-hating, politically-correct feminists(1) who decry any depiction of an attactive woman as a violation of said woman, and who insist that our precious female children are being irreparably harmed by the fact that beauty pageants are allowed to exist. Still, I think they do have a valid point when they point out that men aren't nearly bombarded with the ideal of physical perfection as are women. Next time you're in a grocery store, take a look at the magazine racks. How many have a woman on the cover with 36C tits, a 24 inch inch waist and flawless skin? Most of us guys will never have the looks of Tom Cruise or Bad Pitt, and we know that. But we can at least aspire to a body that looks reasonably close in a pair of slacks and a sweater. Most women could never look like Heidi Klum in a party dress, no matter how much they dieted or worked out, and many would never make it even with serious plastic surgery. If all of the male models, actors and other celebrities were built like Arnold Schwarznegger in his heyday and wore trousers that, rather than have a standard crotch, had form fitting bags that revealed every vein in their ten inch endowments, then men might be a bit intimidated too.
(1) At the risk of sounding politically correct, I'll point out that that's a subgenre of feminists and not a characterization of all feminists.
I suspect the reference is intended to mean that they aren't intimidated or demoralized by an exagerated "ideal" that they have no hope of ever attaining.
Why should I spend time and effort searching out content that appeals to me, downloading it, and saving it for later use when I can sit down in my car, turn on the radio and tune it to a channel that I like?
My job has me doing a good bit of travelling via rental car. I got tired of constantly searching for stations that played the music I wanted to hear and of not being able to get the sports games I want. I bought a portable XM unit that I can transfer from rental car to rental car. A month after I bought it, I had a new stereo put in my car with an XM tuner built in. I've had that radio for two months now, and I don't even have the radio buttons programmed to the local stations because I've never used it to listen to FM.
When I'm on the road, I switch between several different types of music (several sub-genres of rock, jazz, various flavors of country, etc), political talk radio, sports talk radio and sports broadcast according to my mood. There's no way I could carry that much variety and content in a portable device. Additionally, I get the benefit of exposure to little known, non-mainstream artists that I'd never even heard of until I got satellite radio. My christmas list this year is all about CDs from artists that I didn't know existed four months ago.
Podcasting is a revolutionary development, and it certainly has it's place. But I don't think it's a complete replacement for radio, at least not until we get ubiquitous mobile broadband connectivity.
Sure, there are conditions -- because, more often than not, IT'S NOT YOUR (STATE'S) MONEY.
Nah, it's not MY STATEs money. It's not like the money was, oh, I don't know, think of something silly like - say, taken out of the pockets of the citizens of my state without so much as a never-you-mind. Nope, nothing like that happened. The Federal Government just created it out of thin air, and is now generously and magnanimously offering it to us with only a few, tiny, itty-bitty, mostly inconsequential strings attached. We're just a bunch of ungrateful wretches that spit on the hand that tries to feed them.
But, bottom line, the vast, vast majority of the bureaucratic abuse and absurdity that happens in government isn't happening on Capitol Hill -- it's happening in your hometown, which, frankly, is why we have national regulations on things like, say, owning slaves, money laundering and drug trafficking.
Uh, can we stick to one subject at a time? I mean, I'm not trying to tell you what you can or can't say, and it's fine to talk about multiple things at a time, but it helps if you at least stay consistent within a single sentence. Take that one I just quoted, for example. You make a claim about bureaucratic abuse and absurdity, and then try to back it up by talking about owning slaves, money laundering and drug trafficking, none of which have anything to do with bureaucratic abuse or absurdity other than that the latter two are fine examples of the absurdity of federal bureacratic abuse. Somehow, I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
Depending on how you want to measure it, there may very well be more bureaucratic abuse and absurdity at state and local levels than there are at federal levels. There are 50 states and scores of scores of county, city and town levels of government. State and local governments, in the aggregate, are larger and more numerous than the federal government, so they probably generate more insanity. But in terms of the effect on people's lives and the seriousness of the consequences, federal gov is the undisputed heavyweight champion. Take one example you touched on - the war on drugs. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of every 37 American adults has served or is serving prison time. For black males, it's one out of every three. The vast majority of that is a direct result of a stupid and ineffectual war on drugs. We spend billions for no discernable result, to combat something the federal government has no business being involved in in the first place. The carnage in terms of loss of freedom, wrecked lives and economic waste is litterally staggering. The combined effect of all idiocy at the state and local level of government never even comes close, and that's only one part of the federal government.
which is why almost all national government policies merely dictate broad guidelines and leave the details to states, which in turn may delegate details to counties, which in turn may delegate details to cities, which in turn may delegate details to neighborhoods...
Which is why the federal government never interferes when states decide exactly how to implement those details. For example, if California were to pass a law allowing individuals with certain medical conditions to grow marijuana for their own use, the federal government would never challenge that, right? Or if, say, Ohio were to pass a law allowing terminally ill people to choose the time and manner of their own passing, the federal government would never challenge that either.
See: Education and healthcare policy.
And there are no strings attached to federal education money, right? There are no federal statuates that allow a school to be sued if they, for example, spend more money on men's sports than they do on women's sports (regardless of whether or not they can even find enough women interested in sports to make up teams).
I could keep pulling these wild hypotheticals out of thin air but why bother? Stuff like that never happens in this country.
And the thing always ignored about McCarthy was that he was *right*.
Saying that McCarthy was right is like saying that the practice of lancing a patient and bleeding them half to death was right, because, after all, the patient really was sick.
But once we found and suspected paid Soviet spies in government and press, including some high posts, what should our reaction have been?
How about not going on a witch hunt? How about conducting a legitimate investigation? How about taking the evidence before a judge and getting a warrant to tap phones or search offices or whatever else needs to be done in the legitimate interest of national security? How about arresting and jailing or deporting those guilty once you've amassed enough evidence to convict them?
Assuming that you want two separate networks with no routing between them, pick up a Cisco 2900 series switch (under $200 on Ebay). Use VLANs to keep the networks separate, with a trunk port connected to the router. If you need to talk between the VLAN, you can route between them with access lists limiting what is and what isn't allowed.
There are two other ways to check what's starting up. 'msconfig' from start > run is a good one, but I find it a cleaner solution to simply remove the entries from the registry.
Lists everything that is autostarted, and removes the autostart entry with a simple check box and button. If you're comfortable with editing the registry, then by all means feel free to do it manually. But if you're not a hard core geek (or you want something to recommend to your non-geek friends and loved ones), then check out Hijack This. (Not affiliated with the program in any way. It's just a super handy tool to have around - I keep a copy on my pen drive that I carry around with me.)
You're badly mistaken. The new phrase isn't "Speak softly and carry a big rubber stick." It's "Speak loudly as hell ('cause then nobody'll notice that you're lying) and lay about wildly with a great big stick (and make no plans for picking up the pieces afterwards)."
Government does not have a responsiblity to support those with disability. Society has this responsibility. Any organisation which which seeks to sell a service to society should be prepare to sell it to everyone.
Government does have this responsibility. It's the obverse of the coin with which it purchases special privileges and authorities. These authorites are nothing more than the collective right to exercise self defense that we all have. Because it draws its authority from the consent of the governed, its obligated to represent all people equally.
There's no such exchange of authority and responsibility with a private individual or organization. I want to sell something. You want to buy something. If we come to an agreement, a transaction occurs. If not, it doesn't. No third party is involved, and no third party has any right or authority to interfere in or dictate how the transaction occurs. That's in a just, rational society, of course. As I pointed out, we don't live in one.
Slashdot's continual use of obscured image to "check to see if you are a human" is very poor practice, and their entertainly "assuming you are a human" comments would be offensive if the blind people seeing it had not heard it a thousand times before.
Then don't read Slashdot. If enough people agree with you, their page hits will dry up, their ad revenue will evaporate and Slashdot will go the way of millions of other web sites before it. Alternately, contine to read Slashdot and continue to complain about how it does business. You have every right to do so, and if you're loud enough or if enough people join you, the editors may decide to change the say the site operates. But neither you nor anyone else, including the government, has any right to force Slashdot to change the way it operates. Slashdot may have a social responsibility to meet the needs of the disabled, but in a rational society it certainly has no legal responsibility to do so.
In Mass, we're talking about government. Government has a responsibility to represent, support and answer to everyone. It's the very reason for government's existence. Reasonable efforts need to be made to support those with disabilities. I'd suspect that we would disagree on what constitutes "reasonable effort" but we do agree that disabled people have a right to access government services.
Slashdot, on the other hand, is not a government service. In a rational society, it would have no legal obligation to support disabled individuals in any way. I'm not saying that it shouldn't provide support, only that it should not face legal repercussions if it does not do so. Of course, we don't live in a rational society. We live in one where a restaurant owner can be fined or shut down because the toilet is a quarter of an inch too close to the wall. We live in this society. This is the kind of crap that leads to "bleeding heart liberal" comments like the one above.
That depends. If you hire Joe of Joe's Photography to come and photograph your wedding, then Joe is almost certainly going to own the copyright to those photos. However, if you go to the little studio set up in the corner of Wal-Mart and have your kids photo taken while he's playing with a stuffed clown, do you really think the photographer owns the copyrights to those photos? The company who's hiring him does. This case appeared to be a lot closser to the latter case than it does to the former.
Uhh, the whole freakin' point of a small business is that they don't do business in multiple states.
Uhh, welcome to the 20th century, dude. There's this thing called "the Internet." It has lots of neat places called "sites" on it. One example of such "sites" is a place called Ebay. It lets small businesses, even little rinky dink ones that are run out of one person's basement, do business not only in multiple states but ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and they don't even have to have a web server to do it. Seriously. I wouldn't like to you, dude. Amazing, huh? Who'd have thunk it? And there's lots of other businesses, a little bit larger, maybe, but still well within the definition of "small business," that actually put up their own, private web sites that allow people to buy stuff from them from, like, anywhere in the whole world too. It's just mind blowing, man, to think that grandma's sittin on the back porch knitting a sweater that she might sell to somebody in California or Maine or Alaska or even, like, Spain or some shit. It just rocks, you know? The Internet rules. You should check it out sometime.
I don't disagree with a thing you say. However, I have to ask you - what's more likely? That the entire world ditches SQL and moves to a better system? Or that a new, updated version of SQL includes fixes for some of its most heinous sins? I think the answer clearly is the latter, which leads back to the question - what should we do to fix SQL?
Good or bad depends on your point of view, of course. Wouldn't it be trivial to modify existing worms or viruses to take advantage of the exact same concept, hiding themselves from virus scanners?
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground every time he jumped. The bottom line is that, however technologically innovative and well crafted it was, BeOS was a failure. It's been tossed on the junk heap of history and, while there are a few diehard fans who may keep it breathing on life support for awhile longer yet, the chance of it ever being succesful in any meaningful way is so remote as to be dismissed out of hand. You can argue that this is injust - that it was a fine OS which deserved a better fate, and I certainly won't argue with you. But regardless of what shouldda/wouldda/couldda happened, what DID happen is that BeOS was a flash in the pan with lots of hype that quickly faded into oblivion.
GP post was correct so far as I can tell. Every succesful (where succesful means it actually made it into significant use in the real world) OS was a refinement of a previous attempt, and every new, innovative, designed from scratch OS project has ended in dismal failure, usually bankrupting the designers (or at least the corporation they formed) in the process.
Hype. "It's selling out! It's popular! It's cool! I have to have it." And, mysteriously, just in time for Christmas, the second batch is manufactured and delivered and on the shelves. Better grab it NOW, before it sells out again and your child is the only one on the block who didn't get a spiffy, nifty, brand spanking new Xbox for Christmas!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what he means either. However, I suspect that SecureCRT does what he wants. You can configure a login script to run when you connect, within which you can set up shell aliases. You can run scripts manually, within which you can do whatever you like, and you can configure keys to send whatever strings you like. One of these should cover whatever it is that he's asking how to do.
If you want to change it, you are likewise free to break out the soldering iron and figure it out for yourself.
No, you're not. Not if you live in the US, anyway. Doing so is illegal under the DMCA. You can go to jail for breaking out your soldering iron or your data probe or your debugger on hardware that you purchased and own.
That's why some people feel that GPL 3 restrictions forbidding the code to be run on such hardware is appropriate.
First, Google's fiber doesn't do them any good in this situation unless they're also your ISP. Google might have a five inch water line running through your town but if you connect to it via a 1/2" water hose it's all irrelevant to you. If your ISP is Verizon or Comcast or whomever, and they throttle your traffic to Google, Google is going to be slow on your machine no matter how much fiber they have.
Certainly, there's the possibility that if Verizon throttles your connection and Comcast doesn't, you'll switch to Comcast. But if Yahoo pays Verizon not to throttle their data and Google doesn't, is the average user (ie a non-/. reading, doesn't know the difference between ram and hard drive space, still uses IE 5.0, etc) going to know to switch to Comcast or are they simply going to see that Yahoo is snappy and Google is slow, so use Yahoo? I suspect a bit of both will happen, and unless Verizon loses enough customers that they're losing more money than Yahoo is paying them, Verizon is still going to come out ahead.
(Names used here are just examples and not meant to indicate that one company is better than the other.)
It is NOT Microsoft's job, or any other corporation, to decide what laws they should and should not obey.
...
But that's exactly what they did here. They decided that, on their servers here in America, they should honor laws in another country that violate US, UN and every other legitimate standard of human rights.
A global corporation will be expected to enforce local laws of nationals who are using its service.
In the absense of US law then they are required to follow local law and that is as it should be.
Horsefeathers. In some countries, it's illegal for women to seek an education. Is it your contention that all information sites are responsible for identifying women from such countries and refusing to allow them to access their site?
If MS had servers located in China, then you might very well be right. If you're IN a country, you follow that countries laws or face the consequences. MS wasn't in their country. Their laws are not binding here. MS choose to censor someone so that they would not risk offending the Chinese government.
the American people can feel free to elect leaders that will require US multinationals to treat every person on earth as though they are US citizens. If that were the case then MS would not only not have to obey the Chinese government but they'd be breaking the law if they did.
Actually, rightly or wrongly, America already has laws against discrimination. If the blogger were here and able to file a lawsuit against MS, he'd very likely have a strong case that MS was discriminating against Chinese nationals. But of course there's little danger of MS having to face that. The person in question is in a distant country and already facing persecution from his government. Filing a lawsuit against MS probably isn't very high on his agenda.
Personally, I don't think MS should face any legal repercussions for what they did. It's MS's server, and MS should have the right to refuse to do business with anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose. But having a right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it. US citizens have the right to join the KKK but that doesn't justify doing so. MS deserves to be soundly and publically lambasted for what they did. MS should have a right to deny controversial Chinese bloggers access to their servers. But I also have a right to tell them that I think they're a piece of crap for doing so.
Did you bother to RTFA? Questions still remain over why a site believed to be hosted in the United States has to comply with Chinese law.
If the blog were hosted in China, then Chinese law might be applicable. The 'blog was hosted here. MS took it upon themselves to delete the 'blog so the Chinese government wouldn't be offended. By your logic, nothing other than Disney should be hosted on the Internet, since it might be against the law somewhere. Your "don't pay taxes" scenario is silly because it's not at all the same situation - MS is under no obligation to obey Chinese law on servers located in the US.
I haven't used AIM in quite some time but I don't believe it has file sharing of the type in question. You can certainly send a file to someone over AIM but it's a manual process that you have to initiate. You can't set up shared folders where you can dump all of your photos and any of your buddies can browse them. Of course, setting up a folder with all of your commercial music available to all of your buddies would be a copyright violation, so that won't happen but I'm sure clever users will come up with other, legal uses for the capability. Also, to the best of my knowledge, AIM isn't a Bit Torrent client. Your comment is like saying that ICQ wasn't a killer app in its day because you could already exchange messages with people via email.
Far be it from me to defend the man-hating, politically-correct feminists(1) who decry any depiction of an attactive woman as a violation of said woman, and who insist that our precious female children are being irreparably harmed by the fact that beauty pageants are allowed to exist. Still, I think they do have a valid point when they point out that men aren't nearly bombarded with the ideal of physical perfection as are women. Next time you're in a grocery store, take a look at the magazine racks. How many have a woman on the cover with 36C tits, a 24 inch inch waist and flawless skin? Most of us guys will never have the looks of Tom Cruise or Bad Pitt, and we know that. But we can at least aspire to a body that looks reasonably close in a pair of slacks and a sweater. Most women could never look like Heidi Klum in a party dress, no matter how much they dieted or worked out, and many would never make it even with serious plastic surgery. If all of the male models, actors and other celebrities were built like Arnold Schwarznegger in his heyday and wore trousers that, rather than have a standard crotch, had form fitting bags that revealed every vein in their ten inch endowments, then men might be a bit intimidated too.
(1) At the risk of sounding politically correct, I'll point out that that's a subgenre of feminists and not a characterization of all feminists.
I suspect the reference is intended to mean that they aren't intimidated or demoralized by an exagerated "ideal" that they have no hope of ever attaining.
Why should I spend time and effort searching out content that appeals to me, downloading it, and saving it for later use when I can sit down in my car, turn on the radio and tune it to a channel that I like?
My job has me doing a good bit of travelling via rental car. I got tired of constantly searching for stations that played the music I wanted to hear and of not being able to get the sports games I want. I bought a portable XM unit that I can transfer from rental car to rental car. A month after I bought it, I had a new stereo put in my car with an XM tuner built in. I've had that radio for two months now, and I don't even have the radio buttons programmed to the local stations because I've never used it to listen to FM.
When I'm on the road, I switch between several different types of music (several sub-genres of rock, jazz, various flavors of country, etc), political talk radio, sports talk radio and sports broadcast according to my mood. There's no way I could carry that much variety and content in a portable device. Additionally, I get the benefit of exposure to little known, non-mainstream artists that I'd never even heard of until I got satellite radio. My christmas list this year is all about CDs from artists that I didn't know existed four months ago.
Podcasting is a revolutionary development, and it certainly has it's place. But I don't think it's a complete replacement for radio, at least not until we get ubiquitous mobile broadband connectivity.
Sure, there are conditions -- because, more often than not, IT'S NOT YOUR (STATE'S) MONEY.
Nah, it's not MY STATEs money. It's not like the money was, oh, I don't know, think of something silly like - say, taken out of the pockets of the citizens of my state without so much as a never-you-mind. Nope, nothing like that happened. The Federal Government just created it out of thin air, and is now generously and magnanimously offering it to us with only a few, tiny, itty-bitty, mostly inconsequential strings attached. We're just a bunch of ungrateful wretches that spit on the hand that tries to feed them.
But, bottom line, the vast, vast majority of the bureaucratic abuse and absurdity that happens in government isn't happening on Capitol Hill -- it's happening in your hometown, which, frankly, is why we have national regulations on things like, say, owning slaves, money laundering and drug trafficking.
Uh, can we stick to one subject at a time? I mean, I'm not trying to tell you what you can or can't say, and it's fine to talk about multiple things at a time, but it helps if you at least stay consistent within a single sentence. Take that one I just quoted, for example. You make a claim about bureaucratic abuse and absurdity, and then try to back it up by talking about owning slaves, money laundering and drug trafficking, none of which have anything to do with bureaucratic abuse or absurdity other than that the latter two are fine examples of the absurdity of federal bureacratic abuse. Somehow, I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
Depending on how you want to measure it, there may very well be more bureaucratic abuse and absurdity at state and local levels than there are at federal levels. There are 50 states and scores of scores of county, city and town levels of government. State and local governments, in the aggregate, are larger and more numerous than the federal government, so they probably generate more insanity. But in terms of the effect on people's lives and the seriousness of the consequences, federal gov is the undisputed heavyweight champion. Take one example you touched on - the war on drugs. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of every 37 American adults has served or is serving prison time. For black males, it's one out of every three. The vast majority of that is a direct result of a stupid and ineffectual war on drugs. We spend billions for no discernable result, to combat something the federal government has no business being involved in in the first place. The carnage in terms of loss of freedom, wrecked lives and economic waste is litterally staggering. The combined effect of all idiocy at the state and local level of government never even comes close, and that's only one part of the federal government.
- A Wrinkle in Time
Madeleine L'EngleAny of a few score books by Andre Norton.
Anything by Patricia A McKillip, but particularly the "Riddlemaster of Hed" series.
Earthsea series by Ursula K LeGuin
- Ender's Game
by Orson Scott Card. The rest of the series is good as well (as is pretty much anything by Card) but may not appeal as much to your target audience.which is why almost all national government policies merely dictate broad guidelines and leave the details to states, which in turn may delegate details to counties, which in turn may delegate details to cities, which in turn may delegate details to neighborhoods...
Which is why the federal government never interferes when states decide exactly how to implement those details. For example, if California were to pass a law allowing individuals with certain medical conditions to grow marijuana for their own use, the federal government would never challenge that, right? Or if, say, Ohio were to pass a law allowing terminally ill people to choose the time and manner of their own passing, the federal government would never challenge that either.
See: Education and healthcare policy.
And there are no strings attached to federal education money, right? There are no federal statuates that allow a school to be sued if they, for example, spend more money on men's sports than they do on women's sports (regardless of whether or not they can even find enough women interested in sports to make up teams).
I could keep pulling these wild hypotheticals out of thin air but why bother? Stuff like that never happens in this country.
And the thing always ignored about McCarthy was that he was *right*.
Saying that McCarthy was right is like saying that the practice of lancing a patient and bleeding them half to death was right, because, after all, the patient really was sick.
But once we found and suspected paid Soviet spies in government and press, including some high posts, what should our reaction have been?
How about not going on a witch hunt? How about conducting a legitimate investigation? How about taking the evidence before a judge and getting a warrant to tap phones or search offices or whatever else needs to be done in the legitimate interest of national security? How about arresting and jailing or deporting those guilty once you've amassed enough evidence to convict them?
Assuming that you want two separate networks with no routing between them, pick up a Cisco 2900 series switch (under $200 on Ebay). Use VLANs to keep the networks separate, with a trunk port connected to the router. If you need to talk between the VLAN, you can route between them with access lists limiting what is and what isn't allowed.
Have you tried it? It lists lots of things that msconfig doesn't.
There are two other ways to check what's starting up. 'msconfig' from start > run is a good one, but I find it a cleaner solution to simply remove the entries from the registry.
Hijack This
Lists everything that is autostarted, and removes the autostart entry with a simple check box and button. If you're comfortable with editing the registry, then by all means feel free to do it manually. But if you're not a hard core geek (or you want something to recommend to your non-geek friends and loved ones), then check out Hijack This. (Not affiliated with the program in any way. It's just a super handy tool to have around - I keep a copy on my pen drive that I carry around with me.)
You're badly mistaken. The new phrase isn't "Speak softly and carry a big rubber stick." It's "Speak loudly as hell ('cause then nobody'll notice that you're lying) and lay about wildly with a great big stick (and make no plans for picking up the pieces afterwards)."
Government does not have a responsiblity to support those with
disability. Society has this responsibility. Any organisation which
which seeks to sell a service to society should be prepare to sell
it to everyone.
Government does have this responsibility. It's the obverse of the coin with which it purchases special privileges and authorities. These authorites are nothing more than the collective right to exercise self defense that we all have. Because it draws its authority from the consent of the governed, its obligated to represent all people equally.
There's no such exchange of authority and responsibility with a private individual or organization. I want to sell something. You want to buy something. If we come to an agreement, a transaction occurs. If not, it doesn't. No third party is involved, and no third party has any right or authority to interfere in or dictate how the transaction occurs. That's in a just, rational society, of course. As I pointed out, we don't live in one.
Slashdot's continual use of obscured image to "check to see if you
are a human" is very poor practice, and their entertainly "assuming
you are a human" comments would be offensive if the blind people
seeing it had not heard it a thousand times before.
Then don't read Slashdot. If enough people agree with you, their page hits will dry up, their ad revenue will evaporate and Slashdot will go the way of millions of other web sites before it. Alternately, contine to read Slashdot and continue to complain about how it does business. You have every right to do so, and if you're loud enough or if enough people join you, the editors may decide to change the say the site operates. But neither you nor anyone else, including the government, has any right to force Slashdot to change the way it operates. Slashdot may have a social responsibility to meet the needs of the disabled, but in a rational society it certainly has no legal responsibility to do so.
You're mixing apples and oranges here.
In Mass, we're talking about government. Government has a responsibility to represent, support and answer to everyone. It's the very reason for government's existence. Reasonable efforts need to be made to support those with disabilities. I'd suspect that we would disagree on what constitutes "reasonable effort" but we do agree that disabled people have a right to access government services.
Slashdot, on the other hand, is not a government service. In a rational society, it would have no legal obligation to support disabled individuals in any way. I'm not saying that it shouldn't provide support, only that it should not face legal repercussions if it does not do so. Of course, we don't live in a rational society. We live in one where a restaurant owner can be fined or shut down because the toilet is a quarter of an inch too close to the wall. We live in this society. This is the kind of crap that leads to "bleeding heart liberal" comments like the one above.
That depends. If you hire Joe of Joe's Photography to come and photograph your wedding, then Joe is almost certainly going to own the copyright to those photos. However, if you go to the little studio set up in the corner of Wal-Mart and have your kids photo taken while he's playing with a stuffed clown, do you really think the photographer owns the copyrights to those photos? The company who's hiring him does. This case appeared to be a lot closser to the latter case than it does to the former.
Uhh, the whole freakin' point of a small business is that they don't do business in multiple states.
Uhh, welcome to the 20th century, dude. There's this thing called "the Internet." It has lots of neat places called "sites" on it. One example of such "sites" is a place called Ebay. It lets small businesses, even little rinky dink ones that are run out of one person's basement, do business not only in multiple states but ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and they don't even have to have a web server to do it. Seriously. I wouldn't like to you, dude. Amazing, huh? Who'd have thunk it? And there's lots of other businesses, a little bit larger, maybe, but still well within the definition of "small business," that actually put up their own, private web sites that allow people to buy stuff from them from, like, anywhere in the whole world too. It's just mind blowing, man, to think that grandma's sittin on the back porch knitting a sweater that she might sell to somebody in California or Maine or Alaska or even, like, Spain or some shit. It just rocks, you know? The Internet rules. You should check it out sometime.
I don't disagree with a thing you say. However, I have to ask you - what's more likely? That the entire world ditches SQL and moves to a better system? Or that a new, updated version of SQL includes fixes for some of its most heinous sins? I think the answer clearly is the latter, which leads back to the question - what should we do to fix SQL?
Good or bad depends on your point of view, of course. Wouldn't it be trivial to modify existing worms or viruses to take advantage of the exact same concept, hiding themselves from virus scanners?
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground every time he jumped. The bottom line is that, however technologically innovative and well crafted it was, BeOS was a failure. It's been tossed on the junk heap of history and, while there are a few diehard fans who may keep it breathing on life support for awhile longer yet, the chance of it ever being succesful in any meaningful way is so remote as to be dismissed out of hand. You can argue that this is injust - that it was a fine OS which deserved a better fate, and I certainly won't argue with you. But regardless of what shouldda/wouldda/couldda happened, what DID happen is that BeOS was a flash in the pan with lots of hype that quickly faded into oblivion.
GP post was correct so far as I can tell. Every succesful (where succesful means it actually made it into significant use in the real world) OS was a refinement of a previous attempt, and every new, innovative, designed from scratch OS project has ended in dismal failure, usually bankrupting the designers (or at least the corporation they formed) in the process.
Hype. "It's selling out! It's popular! It's cool! I have to have it." And, mysteriously, just in time for Christmas, the second batch is manufactured and delivered and on the shelves. Better grab it NOW, before it sells out again and your child is the only one on the block who didn't get a spiffy, nifty, brand spanking new Xbox for Christmas!!!