and the beverage company that made whatever the drunk drank?
I was with you right up to this part. The drink the drunk drank was designed to intoxicate and therefore impair the drinker if used as directed. The beverage company almost assuredly relies on people drinking to excess and knows that, for some, alcohol is just as addicting as nicotine. What's worse is that drunk driving can have a more immediate effect on others than second-hand smoke.
Pardon me for adding appropriate emphasis, but this is almost everything that's wrong with America. Government can not require anything that the market will not support without someone paying for it.
Well, for the most part, I agree. However, it is almost exactly this same requirement that has placed a telephone in 94.6% of homes in the US. I cannot put my fingers on statistics for other countries, currently; however, the last time I saw them the numbers were significantly lower, even in most of Western Europe. AT&T and some small ILECs were given a monopoly during the depths of the depression in exchange for a mandate of providing service for all. I would suggest that however much this deal contributed to the ultimate rise of the US economy, we citizens made out pretty well. Could such a deal as this bill provides mean as much to our future?
If the government provides you with free access, does that give them the right to censor it? I couldn't begin to speak to the Australian constitutionality of this, but I've always wondered about the American constitutionality of similar schemes.
I would think that requiring schools to censor content in order to receive funding pretty clearly infringes upon the first amendment rights of the site operators.
I have seen it argued that if the service is provided "free," you have no right to complain. However, the service is not free. Citizens and corporations pay taxes to the government and expect services in return. If the government provides one of those services at no charge, that doesn't make it free.
The real question, I think, is why these schemes aren't being challenged. I suspect the answer lies in one or more of the following:
Bandwidth cost money and school kids aren't going to pull out their credit card.
Free speech advocates are picking their battles. It's hard to argue that kids should have access to porn.
Site operators know that filtering doesn't work anyway.
The point of the bill, as I read it, is to put high-speed Internet access on a par with telephone service, in that it should be available to everyone. The bill requires that high-speed access be available through every bell central office, or CO, within five years; and it requires that every loop from that CO, regardless of distance, be capable of providing high-speed service at the customer's request. If the loop cannot support high-speed access, then the telco must use other technology to deliver the service.
Inter-connection between ISPs and the Bells are changed in nature, but still required. Existing agreements will run their course; new agreements will require that the fee charged to ISPs for access to the loop be the same that the telco charges itself. The Bells must still allow ISPs to inter-connect with them.
Perhaps it is best to think of the new arrangements as being akin to the way long-distance telephone service is handled. Today, when you signup for a telephone you can choose your long-distance carrier and change it at will. When/if this bill passes, it seems that the intent is for you to do the same with your ISP.
One last point that should be clarified: the bill does not trash the unbundling portions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It simply says that it doesn't allow for using those unbundled components for anything other than telephone service; consequently, it reverses the interpretations put forward by the FCC that has led to the hodge-podge, bankrupt, trail-and-error solutions to high-speed access we've seen to date.
While reading this, I noticed that TNN was re-airing the ST:TNG episode called "Relics" where Scotty is found in the transporter buffer of a crashed ship and finds himself 75 years in the future.
I must admit that while reading about some of the predicted advances I feel a bit lost in the ramifications. In some ways, we are not only a product of our upbringing, but also the time we grew up in. Even at 33, I find the ideas of artificial living entities and cultured replacement organs a bit daunting. We've lived for millenia on this planet with just natural life forms and no spare organs and we treat living things and our bodies with such little respect. When we can engineer replacements, how much will life mean then? What kind of world will future generations grow up in?
Like Scotty, I don't think I'd want to wake up 75 years into the future. While I'm curious about how things will be, I suspect I'd just feel out of place.
Critical thinking skills don't kick in until around 7th grade (e.g. puberty).
That's funny. Seriously, most adults I know will believe nearly anything you tell them as long as its probable.
Why? Because the alternative is unthinkable. Imagine trying to function in the world if you required everyone to prove everything they told you. Even if you've been trained to think critically, you have to tentatively accept what you read or hear as true unless you have cause to disbelieve the source.
While young children may be the least capable of judging the reliability of what they read, they are far from alone in lacking that training/experience. What's far worse is that older people can do more damage with the unreliable information they embrace.
The earlier kids are exposed to the Internet, the sooner they discover that you can't believe all things you read, hear, or see. Eventually they'll embrace something that is patently false and be corrected when they repeat it. Lesson learned.
My suggestion is that fox never even try to have an original program at 6:00 central on a Sunday night.
Agreed.
I think they'd do better to have Futurama share a time slot with Family Guy. The two shows combined could fill a whole season with programming where neither manages, or is allowed to, now.
They could go one better and commit one whole hour a week for short seasons of niche shows. One week, show Family Guy and The Tick; Next week, show Futurama and _________. Next week back to Family Guy. Etc.
Just put the hour somewhere in the schedule that isn't prone to being pre-empted. The current Thursday 8pm slot seems appropriate since their only chance is to couter-program the NBC sitcoms.
Since the underlying protection mechanism is copyright, companies don't really want to sell it. I mean it would be really great to own Windows XP for a few hundred bucks and then to tell MicroSoft to cease and desist selling MY SOFTWARE. I'd love that. Ain't going to happen.
Isn't that a tad facetious. If I go out and buy a book, that doesn't make me the copyright holder, does it? Why should software be any different?
The copyright on the software is all they need to assert their rights. Anything else is lawyers covering their asses and marketing people scheming things.
While I agree with you that this sort of thing is wrong, I think Katz may be wrong. While a building was definitely added, as part of the plot, I saw no evidence that the Twin Towers had been removed. There are many, many shots of the skyline in the movie, but I don't recall a single one that looked at that part of Manhattan, and I was looking for it.
At one point, the camera was panning south through the skyline, but cut to the next scene before it was south enough to reach the WTC. Was this edited? If so, good, 'cause I was tired of all the skyline fller.
Once you've applied a patch, how likely are you to realize you need to do so again? Also, many people will attribute, falsely, adverse affects of other viruses to your virus, making it more difficult to isolate yours. A patch for a worm that re-opens other holes would need to close all of the holes to be truely affective.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
1. Ban *all* carry-on luggage.
2. Pass *all* passengers through metal detectors and pat downs.
3. Place Air Marshals trained in hand-to-hand combat on all domestic flights armed with rubber bullet firing guns (something that will not puncture the plane.)
4. Anything that absolutely must be carried on should be checked with the Air Marshal and thoroughly searched.
I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning.
Well, this might be the case, but isn't their usually a dialog between the airport and the plane before and during take-off? You'd think they'd notice that the voice had changed at some point.
I also heard on TV (CNN, I think) that the hijacked planes turned off their transponders. Perhaps they had been set, briefly, to 7600 before that.
Buy a handheld aviation GPS. $1000 for a nice one that will happily tell you exactly where to point the plane and let you know if you're off course to teh left or right.
I shouldn't laugh at how easy this is, but you're right. Reading your comment made me picture a terrorist pilot with a talking GPS calmly giving computerized directions totally unaware of the horror it's facilitating.
Kinda makes you look forward to AI so that the GPS can refuse to give directions. "You want to land this plane where?!"
My understanding is that all credit cards have this feature!
Well, not exactly. While you can take a cash advance at an ATM if your card has a PIN, it is not the same technology. When you take a cash advance, your information, along with the pin you enter, is transmitted to the bank for verification. The Smart Cards allow for verification against the encrypted PIN stored on the card itself. It's my understanding that the magnetic strip on normal credit cards doesn't include the PIN.
Smith pokes fun at about everything in arms reach in this movie including the audience and himself. You can measure how many Smith fans are in the audience by the laugh response to:
"I wonder if Mirimax will option Holden's comic."
"What, Chasing Amy? That'll never work as a movie."
Also, Holden's line:
"Who would go and see a movie about Jay and Silent Bob?" [Smith, Mewes, and Affleck turn to look at camera. Smith smiles.]
The best irony in the film is a joke on many levels. Jay and Silent Bob become incensed about posting on moviepoopshoot.com which is registered to:
Registrant:
View Askew Productions
PO Box 400
Red Bank, NJ 20902
US
Registrar: Dotster (http://www.dotster.com)
Domain Name: MOVIEPOOPSHOOT.COM
Created on: 09-JAN-01
Expires on: 09-JAN-03
At a deeper level though, Smith is ranting about postings on Internet message boards, made even more ironic by the focus of his site which contains an extensive message board, to which he posts. (And occasionally answers questions.)
I found the irony and asides to the camera to be great fun in this movie and would highly recommend it on the basis of in-jokes alone (Of which the material I mention is only a tiny part.)
As this story about Fossett demonstrates, we cannot even fly lighter-than-air craft around this planet with any sort of reliability and precision. What makes us think we can do it remotely around another planet? I guess if we don't care where it lands after take off, then ok.
Express your concern about stability to your client. Find out from your client what they want to use the password for. Explain the difference between routine administration (e.g. adding users) and server maintenance (e.g. kernel patches) and suggest that you set-up psuedo root access for routine tasks and then backup the files the psuedo account can change.
It is not uncommon to provide clients with a 'root' account that lets them configure the services they use (e.g. POP3, Samba) without giving full access to things like 'make'. Understanding how to do this is left as an exercise for the reader.
Anything lower than 20th century technology on their side and they won't hear us. Anything greater than 21st technology and chances are they'll find us a LOT sooner than we'll find them.
Of course, trying to communicate also suggests that we believe technology == intelligence. Kind of a problem with the whole concept of SETI. (Yes, I know this isn't about SETI.) Absence of any form of interstellar communication doesn't mean there's no intelligent life where we're looking. It could also mean they cannot or do not communicate that way, or we're too clueless to detect their more advanced stuff.
If you spot Corel Linux in a bargain bin, keep looking. I tried it out as a comparison to RedHat and found it easier to install and more or less equal in usability, but:
Their efforts to support it were less than stellar and now I don't think they support it at all.
I guess package management is supposed to be the Debian style, but it doesn't seem to work right.
For server software, they made some odd selections for standard tools, like exim (sp?) for mail instead of qmail or sendmail.
Lastly, by comparison to RedHat, things are in different places. I'm not sure if there really is a standard, or which distro isn't following it, but having the same things in different places, implemented in different ways nade switching back and forth between RedHat and Corel, um, eh, 'interesting', yeah that's it.
Why is it that every time a review comes out, all these people come out of the woodwork to find little errors.
Is it jealousy? Do you think you could write a better review and are jealous that he gets paid money for his?
Have you been reading his reviews? I'm especially fond of his review of Jurassic Park 3, in which he admits he didn't even sit through it. I have, and could, write better reviews. I'm not jealous of the fact that Jon gets paid to write. I'm annoyed that he's so pretentious and sloppy about it (and getting worse.) I've been reading his 'reviews' on this site for a while and have let bigger errors slide. I pointed out the picky things that I did, because if he can't get details like that right, what use is the review? Why should people pay attention to his reviews if he cannot get the details of what he saw right?
As a reviewer, he has a great deal of latitude to give his opinion of what he saw, and I respect that. But, if he's gonna go beyond opinion to report what he actually saw, he should do so accurately, or not at all. People who read/. should be told when the review their reading is factually acurate, or not. If he can't get the facts straight, what's the use of his opinion of them?
If you like West Wing, you should watch Sports Night (re-running on Comedy Central). The show was done by the same team before they started West Wing. The dialog has the same rapid-fire, sharp accuracy. It's not as polished, but the funny stuff, on average, is WAY funnier.
Slashdot Mirror
and the beverage company that made whatever the drunk drank?
I was with you right up to this part. The drink the drunk drank was designed to intoxicate and therefore impair the drinker if used as directed. The beverage company almost assuredly relies on people drinking to excess and knows that, for some, alcohol is just as addicting as nicotine. What's worse is that drunk driving can have a more immediate effect on others than second-hand smoke.
Pardon me for adding appropriate emphasis, but this is almost everything that's wrong with America. Government can not require anything that the market will not support without someone paying for it.
Well, for the most part, I agree. However, it is almost exactly this same requirement that has placed a telephone in 94.6% of homes in the US. I cannot put my fingers on statistics for other countries, currently; however, the last time I saw them the numbers were significantly lower, even in most of Western Europe. AT&T and some small ILECs were given a monopoly during the depths of the depression in exchange for a mandate of providing service for all. I would suggest that however much this deal contributed to the ultimate rise of the US economy, we citizens made out pretty well. Could such a deal as this bill provides mean as much to our future?
I would think that requiring schools to censor content in order to receive funding pretty clearly infringes upon the first amendment rights of the site operators.
I have seen it argued that if the service is provided "free," you have no right to complain. However, the service is not free. Citizens and corporations pay taxes to the government and expect services in return. If the government provides one of those services at no charge, that doesn't make it free.
The real question, I think, is why these schemes aren't being challenged. I suspect the answer lies in one or more of the following:
Lets try communism, it works SO much better.
;)
Better still, a Slash-ocracy, where all decisions are made through Slashdot polls.
Should make CowboyNeal a viable third-party candidate when he's old enough.
The point of the bill, as I read it, is to put high-speed Internet access on a par with telephone service, in that it should be available to everyone. The bill requires that high-speed access be available through every bell central office, or CO, within five years; and it requires that every loop from that CO, regardless of distance, be capable of providing high-speed service at the customer's request. If the loop cannot support high-speed access, then the telco must use other technology to deliver the service.
Inter-connection between ISPs and the Bells are changed in nature, but still required. Existing agreements will run their course; new agreements will require that the fee charged to ISPs for access to the loop be the same that the telco charges itself. The Bells must still allow ISPs to inter-connect with them.
Perhaps it is best to think of the new arrangements as being akin to the way long-distance telephone service is handled. Today, when you signup for a telephone you can choose your long-distance carrier and change it at will. When/if this bill passes, it seems that the intent is for you to do the same with your ISP.
One last point that should be clarified: the bill does not trash the unbundling portions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It simply says that it doesn't allow for using those unbundled components for anything other than telephone service; consequently, it reverses the interpretations put forward by the FCC that has led to the hodge-podge, bankrupt, trail-and-error solutions to high-speed access we've seen to date.
While reading this, I noticed that TNN was re-airing the ST:TNG episode called "Relics" where Scotty is found in the transporter buffer of a crashed ship and finds himself 75 years in the future.
I must admit that while reading about some of the predicted advances I feel a bit lost in the ramifications. In some ways, we are not only a product of our upbringing, but also the time we grew up in. Even at 33, I find the ideas of artificial living entities and cultured replacement organs a bit daunting. We've lived for millenia on this planet with just natural life forms and no spare organs and we treat living things and our bodies with such little respect. When we can engineer replacements, how much will life mean then? What kind of world will future generations grow up in?
Like Scotty, I don't think I'd want to wake up 75 years into the future. While I'm curious about how things will be, I suspect I'd just feel out of place.
Critical thinking skills don't kick in until around 7th grade (e.g. puberty).
That's funny. Seriously, most adults I know will believe nearly anything you tell them as long as its probable.
Why? Because the alternative is unthinkable. Imagine trying to function in the world if you required everyone to prove everything they told you. Even if you've been trained to think critically, you have to tentatively accept what you read or hear as true unless you have cause to disbelieve the source.
While young children may be the least capable of judging the reliability of what they read, they are far from alone in lacking that training/experience. What's far worse is that older people can do more damage with the unreliable information they embrace.
The earlier kids are exposed to the Internet, the sooner they discover that you can't believe all things you read, hear, or see. Eventually they'll embrace something that is patently false and be corrected when they repeat it. Lesson learned.
My suggestion is that fox never even try to have an original program at 6:00 central on a Sunday night.
Agreed.
I think they'd do better to have Futurama share a time slot with Family Guy. The two shows combined could fill a whole season with programming where neither manages, or is allowed to, now.
They could go one better and commit one whole hour a week for short seasons of niche shows. One week, show Family Guy and The Tick; Next week, show Futurama and _________. Next week back to Family Guy. Etc.
Just put the hour somewhere in the schedule that isn't prone to being pre-empted. The current Thursday 8pm slot seems appropriate since their only chance is to couter-program the NBC sitcoms.
is what some friends and I called the game when played by co-workers and friends.
The one consistent theme in all of them was being red-eyed and having no free time.
On the other hand, one met her husband through the game, so I guess it can't be all bad.
Since the underlying protection mechanism is copyright, companies don't really want to sell it. I mean it would be really great to own Windows XP for a few hundred bucks and then to tell MicroSoft to cease and desist selling MY SOFTWARE. I'd love that. Ain't going to happen.
Isn't that a tad facetious. If I go out and buy a book, that doesn't make me the copyright holder, does it? Why should software be any different?
The copyright on the software is all they need to assert their rights. Anything else is lawyers covering their asses and marketing people scheming things.
Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?
While I agree with you that this sort of thing is wrong, I think Katz may be wrong. While a building was definitely added, as part of the plot, I saw no evidence that the Twin Towers had been removed. There are many, many shots of the skyline in the movie, but I don't recall a single one that looked at that part of Manhattan, and I was looking for it.
At one point, the camera was panning south through the skyline, but cut to the next scene before it was south enough to reach the WTC. Was this edited? If so, good, 'cause I was tired of all the skyline fller.
What would be the point?
Once you've applied a patch, how likely are you to realize you need to do so again? Also, many people will attribute, falsely, adverse affects of other viruses to your virus, making it more difficult to isolate yours. A patch for a worm that re-opens other holes would need to close all of the holes to be truely affective.
1. Ban *all* carry-on luggage.
2. Pass *all* passengers through metal detectors and pat downs.
3. Place Air Marshals trained in hand-to-hand combat on all domestic flights armed with rubber bullet firing guns (something that will not puncture the plane.)
4. Anything that absolutely must be carried on should be checked with the Air Marshal and thoroughly searched.
I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning.
Well, this might be the case, but isn't their usually a dialog between the airport and the plane before and during take-off? You'd think they'd notice that the voice had changed at some point.
I also heard on TV (CNN, I think) that the hijacked planes turned off their transponders. Perhaps they had been set, briefly, to 7600 before that.
Buy a handheld aviation GPS. $1000 for a nice one that will happily tell you exactly where to point the plane and let you know if you're off course to teh left or right.
I shouldn't laugh at how easy this is, but you're right. Reading your comment made me picture a terrorist pilot with a talking GPS calmly giving computerized directions totally unaware of the horror it's facilitating.
Kinda makes you look forward to AI so that the GPS can refuse to give directions. "You want to land this plane where?!"
My understanding is that all credit cards have this feature!
Well, not exactly. While you can take a cash advance at an ATM if your card has a PIN, it is not the same technology. When you take a cash advance, your information, along with the pin you enter, is transmitted to the bank for verification. The Smart Cards allow for verification against the encrypted PIN stored on the card itself. It's my understanding that the magnetic strip on normal credit cards doesn't include the PIN.
Also, Holden's line:
The best irony in the film is a joke on many levels. Jay and Silent Bob become incensed about posting on moviepoopshoot.com which is registered to:
Registrant:
View Askew Productions
PO Box 400
Red Bank, NJ 20902
US
Registrar: Dotster (http://www.dotster.com)
Domain Name: MOVIEPOOPSHOOT.COM
Created on: 09-JAN-01
Expires on: 09-JAN-03
At a deeper level though, Smith is ranting about postings on Internet message boards, made even more ironic by the focus of his site which contains an extensive message board, to which he posts. (And occasionally answers questions.)
I found the irony and asides to the camera to be great fun in this movie and would highly recommend it on the basis of in-jokes alone (Of which the material I mention is only a tiny part.)
As this story about Fossett demonstrates, we cannot even fly lighter-than-air craft around this planet with any sort of reliability and precision. What makes us think we can do it remotely around another planet? I guess if we don't care where it lands after take off, then ok.
Express your concern about stability to your client. Find out from your client what they want to use the password for. Explain the difference between routine administration (e.g. adding users) and server maintenance (e.g. kernel patches) and suggest that you set-up psuedo root access for routine tasks and then backup the files the psuedo account can change.
It is not uncommon to provide clients with a 'root' account that lets them configure the services they use (e.g. POP3, Samba) without giving full access to things like 'make'. Understanding how to do this is left as an exercise for the reader.
Anything lower than 20th century technology on their side and they won't hear us. Anything greater than 21st technology and chances are they'll find us a LOT sooner than we'll find them.
Of course, trying to communicate also suggests that we believe technology == intelligence. Kind of a problem with the whole concept of SETI. (Yes, I know this isn't about SETI.) Absence of any form of interstellar communication doesn't mean there's no intelligent life where we're looking. It could also mean they cannot or do not communicate that way, or we're too clueless to detect their more advanced stuff.
post our messages to them on Slashdot and by the time we hit "submit" the aliens' response will already be on its way back to us.
There are no other^H^H^H^H^H aliens posting to this forum. Nothing more to see here. Move along.
Hmmmmm.... almost makes you wonder about the source of the worm.
<comic store guy>Best marketing campaign, ever.</comic store guy>
Why is it that every time a review comes out, all these people come out of the woodwork to find little errors. Is it jealousy? Do you think you could write a better review and are jealous that he gets paid money for his?
/. should be told when the review their reading is factually acurate, or not. If he can't get the facts straight, what's the use of his opinion of them?
Have you been reading his reviews? I'm especially fond of his review of Jurassic Park 3, in which he admits he didn't even sit through it. I have, and could, write better reviews. I'm not jealous of the fact that Jon gets paid to write. I'm annoyed that he's so pretentious and sloppy about it (and getting worse.) I've been reading his 'reviews' on this site for a while and have let bigger errors slide. I pointed out the picky things that I did, because if he can't get details like that right, what use is the review? Why should people pay attention to his reviews if he cannot get the details of what he saw right?
As a reviewer, he has a great deal of latitude to give his opinion of what he saw, and I respect that. But, if he's gonna go beyond opinion to report what he actually saw, he should do so accurately, or not at all. People who read
If you like West Wing, you should watch Sports Night (re-running on Comedy Central). The show was done by the same team before they started West Wing. The dialog has the same rapid-fire, sharp accuracy. It's not as polished, but the funny stuff, on average, is WAY funnier.