Whatever clown moderator picked "Funny" certainly isn't seeing as far as he ought to.
Really, what will happen if a central body, such as LSB, becomes a defacto "standards boss" for Linux?
With a slew of distros, you have redundancy of creativity. Vital if you're being targeted by enemies.
I really don't want LSB to get TOO successful, else it may become a "single point of failure" upon which merciless special interests may lean with all their weight.
No, but it would most likely (alas, the human packed supreme court could very well err, especially in these days) violate the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punshment as well as the requirements of due process.
You don't have to file for bankruptcy proceedings to actually go bankrupt, FYI.
There's something called "involuntary bankruptcy" where your payment starved creditors gang up on you and squeeze you like a watermelon before you go completely broke. THEY file the petition, and you still go bankrupt.
If the harassing speech didn't take place on school campus, then the principal is overstepping his jurisdiction.
Besides, the principal, should he not have exhausted his revenge by expelling the student, can still exact a remedy by suing the student and his parents for libel. In short, his remedies are not exhausted and he could still bite back.
The disruption in question took place OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the school and therefore there exist no grounds for expulsion.
Now, if she misused school property in the process (say, by myspacing on school computers), that WOULD be grounds. But here, the principal long-armed when he had no right to.
Having said that, the kid indeed *deserved* to be expelled, or, better yet, suffer a consequence of equal magnitude in someway through the mechanisms of karma.
Bottom line:
The problem isn't that the punishment was too severe. The problem is that the principal did an end-run around due process.
However, it doesn't excuse the avaricious attitude of the people who exploit it.
Stealing and lying are still as wrong now as they ever were. Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right.
I wager that anyone who would be sleazy enough to exploit a naive client would also be dastardly enough to use social engineering, forgery, and outright deception to get the same ends.
If it were ok to do things just becuase you wouldn't get caught, I dare say that bank robbers would be even more brazen than they already are.
Just becuase HW OEMs are too much in bed with MS to release specs (I'd bet my bottom dollar that MS has some sort of exclusive contract), doesn't mean that linux sucks.
Perhaps Linux devs just have standards high enough that they won't pay for specs through money sucked out of the market through illicit means (monopoly maintenance).
Cheers for Red Hat, and boo on the world in general for rigging things so that cheaters ALWAYS win.
In particular, I believe that the presence of a corporation (WB) muddies the waters significantly.
Other than their possible interest as whatevers of the movies, I scratch my head even wondering what the hell business of WB it even is to be worrying about the lexicon in the first place.
Why WB is even trying to exert influence on JK is beyond me unless it's the sort of gung-ho squashing that the RIAA is so fond of.
Given our corrent society, I wouldn't trust ANY corporation farther than I could throw it, at least not without giving its articles of incorporation and bylaws a CLOSE inspection.
"Not only that, but if we add up all the patents, lawsuits, legal fee's, EULA's, NDA's, DRM, and all the other bullshit we can see how "efficient" captialism is, it's a load of shit. The modern corporation as well as the patent/copyright system is one of the most fucked up entities ever. Anyone who says the market is "efficient" means the small bastardized E, in terms of engineering and in terms of nature, it's nowhere near such things."
What you seem to be forgetting is that the pervasiveness of said patents, copyrights, etc etc etc also grant the possessing companies monopoly positions in their markets. And a monopoly dominated industry and/or market is, by definition, not competitive.
Your attack on competition as the foundation of capitalism fails because the evidence you use against it is completely irrelevant. Your evidence attacks monopoly, not competition. There's even cases where the "market" self-corrects even against such monopolies. For example, companies like the RIAA are starting to get the crap kicked out of them by ex-sheep who are fed up with getting abused. SCO finally screwed the wrong arse and got castrated by Novell. These are just examples of the "inefficient market" actually doing its job.
A capitalist market, which according to you implies competition, would work. The reason that "capitalism" doesn't work is that monopoly, power-hungry, government-bedsharing companies are preventing capitalistic competition from actually working.
Companies like the RIAA, Microsoft, and so on are sharing pockets with the government so much that they are effectively part of it. Now, given that, how could we call our system "capitalist" in the first place? I propose that, due to improper relations between companies and the feds, our market fails at one of the key prerequisites to qualify as "capitalist", namely, the minimalist involvement in the market by the "government".
And having 3 different platforms is really not that bad. Apple hardware specializes in high-end graphics. PC's are the workhorses in business. I would rather have Apple take care of the artsy fartsy type market needs and PC's take care of the number-crunchy boring stuff. I call it specialzaton where specialization is needed. I myself have both a PC and an iMac, both of which I wouldn't mind running.
As far as linux is concerned, IMO it is yet another "market self-correction" triggered by the abusiveness of the Window$ regime.
Currently, I have Charter Communications with a 5 G-bit/sec provision. Normally, it would cost me 50 bucks, but I got a special "FOAF" deal for only 20 bucks.
Try as I might, I can never go above 5Gb/sec, so I'm capped.
My capping, however, is fixed, and automatic. I can't download 'too much' simply because I'm throttled at 5Gb/sec. Not bad, considering all I want is to be able to do apt-get, mirror some RFC's, and maybe do a bittorrent eventually.
I like my service, becuase I simply have to wait for the stuff to get through my pipe. However, knowing that my provider has a realtime throttle as opposed to a monthly cap, means that I won't be getting any nasty surprises.
Now, I do suffer from not using my bandwidth all the time...but I got the slowest "provison" they ahd to offer, and for someone unfortunate enough to not even have dialup, it's really sweet.
I like my service because there are no surprises. And I was geeky enough to set up my own internet even though the install guys couldn't figure out my linux box.
The funny bit was when they asked me if I had "XP or vista", and I went "huh? oh, neither I use linux".
Install guys: uh, wtf?
But yeah, with Charter Communications, there are no surprises.
Actually, spammers don't get their profits from you actually receiving it. That's actually one of the last things on their minds.
Spammers, through the usage of botnets and other means, take business from shady dealers who are trying to sell the crap in the first place.
The spammer profits by sending the emails on behalf of Huge Penis Incorporated, and they really couldn't give a damn whether anyone actually buys the stuff. It's pure profit margin for the spammer no matter how many people actually bother to act.
Of course, they have to keep up appearances. Emails not getting through makes their reputation as spammers go down...so they have to do something just to make themselves look marketable to companies who push the stuff. But as far as actual ROI, that's really not the spammer's concern. They don't have to reach you, they just have to make their clients think they are.
The company that sells the stuff loses becuase nobody gives a crap about their stuff. The poor hapless souls with stuffed inbuxes lose because their email has been overrun. The only winner is the spammer who was paid money to send the junk mail, as well as any botnet operators he rents from.
Seriously, it's a spammer. Do you think anyone who is nasty enough to flood our inboxes and associate with botnet operators would actually give a crap about how profitable he is making his "clients" by running ads for them?
You may find it amusing to use sarcasm, however, it wasn't quite such a laughable matter for Galileo.
I only hope that modern times are better. Given our history of persecution, I have my doubts.
And FYI, there have been cases of teachers being wrong. Just recently in spring quarter in Calculus II, I caught my teacher making a major blunder on a function's graph. I called him out on it, my classmate was pretty much annoyed at my not letting it go. When I was proven right, I was vindicated.
Had my instructor been dictatorial, I would likely have flunked that class. Unfortunately, there are probably cases where creative thought is shunned. It may just be rumor, but I have a feeling that kids in, say, North Korea do not enjoy such freedom.
What I have a problem with is the fact that evolution, already being entrenched, enjoys so much popularity that it is automatically given the benefit of the doubt. Anything else gets saddled with the burden of proof.
Until someone actually PROVES evolution, doesn't hte burden of proof remain against it?
There are many cases in law where the burden of proof crushes those who cannot bear it, and legal precedent is established in many cases, irreversibly, because "you just couldn't prove it". With "statutes of repose", basically whatever the judge decides, given his limited insight into the facts of the case, becomes the "truth", and even if the judge gets something factually wrong (or, the jury), in many cases you cannot appeal a finding of fact, because the legal system arrogantly presumes the word of a jury or judge to be supreme and infallible.
Science can work the same way if the "jury" happens to be the status quo believing community. Many cases arise where brilliant minds such as Galileo are shunned, and in some cases, even persecuted for daring to contradict established doctrine. People were hanged, drawn, and quartered for that...not merely embarrassed in a debate.
I see the same thing happening today. Personally, I do not know one way or the other about evolution OR intelligent design. However, since nobody has proven EITHER of them, I find it unfair that evolution enjoys a presumption of being right, while anything else that goes against it must bear a greater burden of proof. As far as I'm concerned, they are BOTH theories and they should BOTH be treated skeptically, instead of one or the other being paraded out as fact.
Not believing in evolution has real consequences. In science class, you damn well say and write whatever the teacher tells you to. If the book says the statue of liberty is made of stone (this happened once), you lose points on a test if you tell the truth. Unless, of course, you challenge it. At that point however, you become a nail waiting to be pounded down. Authority figures can and do influence knowledge using criteria other than truth.
So here we have students being indoctrinated by evolution, which I have personally seen as introduced as FACT, not THEORY. You can flunk science class if you don't agree with what your teacher says.
What about all of us geeks that actually have to WRITE and TEST the crap that y'all are supposed to install?
Should we run GCC as root?
No...not a good idea.
Leave gcc running as a normal user. You only need root to "install", aka "make install" in most cases, and there it's usually just a simple file copy operation.
Instead of just letting people secure judgements, why not make them secured debts?
RIAA wrongly sues John Doe, John Doe wins and collects attorney fees, then here's what should happen. John Doe should get a lien on the copyright the RIAA alleged he broke until his expenses and damages (which should include some punitives for malicious prosecution) are paid.
And...until the RIAA pays the lien off, they don't get to collect one red cent of damages for future alleged infringement of that copyright until they pay off the lien.
Sure, try to squeeze into a market that has high entry costs, and requires you to have a tug-o-war with an entrenched monopoly over market share.
You get even a toe on their turf and you'll be shooed out faster than you can blink an eye.
Sure, if comcast pisses off enough customers, you may get lucky. But try surviving the blackballing and possible sabotage/cold shoulder upstream/smear campaigns and even getting established enough to get noticed.
You are not depriving the owner of property, but you are wrongfully gaining. It's not right for you to steal, because you're screwing the seller out of the royalties they could have gotten from you had you paid for them fair and square.
It has to be worth something to you (otherwise you wouldn't steal it), so the fact that you're not willing to pay doesn't make it worthless.
Mind you, I think that copyright (aka "patent") law is a crock of shit. But that does not make it right to steal.
I still think the RIAA is a crock of shit. But two wrongs do not make a right.
I believe it's wrong to infringe copyright. But I will quite readily assert and admit that the RIAA is the greater of two evils.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever clown moderator picked "Funny" certainly isn't seeing as far as he ought to.
Really, what will happen if a central body, such as LSB, becomes a defacto "standards boss" for Linux?
With a slew of distros, you have redundancy of creativity. Vital if you're being targeted by enemies.
I really don't want LSB to get TOO successful, else it may become a "single point of failure" upon which merciless special interests may lean with all their weight.
No, but it would most likely (alas, the human packed supreme court could very well err, especially in these days) violate the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punshment as well as the requirements of due process.
You don't have to file for bankruptcy proceedings to actually go bankrupt, FYI.
There's something called "involuntary bankruptcy" where your payment starved creditors gang up on you and squeeze you like a watermelon before you go completely broke. THEY file the petition, and you still go bankrupt.
If the harassing speech didn't take place on school campus, then the principal is overstepping his jurisdiction.
Besides, the principal, should he not have exhausted his revenge by expelling the student, can still exact a remedy by suing the student and his parents for libel. In short, his remedies are not exhausted and he could still bite back.
The disruption in question took place OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the school and therefore there exist no grounds for expulsion.
Now, if she misused school property in the process (say, by myspacing on school computers), that WOULD be grounds. But here, the principal long-armed when he had no right to.
Having said that, the kid indeed *deserved* to be expelled, or, better yet, suffer a consequence of equal magnitude in someway through the mechanisms of karma.
Bottom line:
The problem isn't that the punishment was too severe. The problem is that the principal did an end-run around due process.
Blind trust is indeed dumb.
However, it doesn't excuse the avaricious attitude of the people who exploit it.
Stealing and lying are still as wrong now as they ever were. Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right.
I wager that anyone who would be sleazy enough to exploit a naive client would also be dastardly enough to use social engineering, forgery, and outright deception to get the same ends.
If it were ok to do things just becuase you wouldn't get caught, I dare say that bank robbers would be even more brazen than they already are.
nt.
Laying a fiber network may be just as much of an investment in your tax base as is laying water pipes or franchising a power company.
Or fixing roads...or running schools, etc etc etc.
In this modern age perhaps internet access is just as important as the other stuff.
So yeah, screw you telco, this isn't FOR PROFIT.
Hear hear!
Just becuase HW OEMs are too much in bed with MS to release specs (I'd bet my bottom dollar that MS has some sort of exclusive contract), doesn't mean that linux sucks.
Perhaps Linux devs just have standards high enough that they won't pay for specs through money sucked out of the market through illicit means (monopoly maintenance).
Cheers for Red Hat, and boo on the world in general for rigging things so that cheaters ALWAYS win.
Uh, yeah, you missed a zero.
100 C is boiling water. If steel melted at that temperature my stove would be covered in a puddle of slag right now.
PROTONS.
In this case, grammar nazis are perfectly welcome, especially since in this particular case one typo COMPLETELY screws up the meaning.
Spelling and grammar are like the Error Correction Code of speech.
Agreed.
In particular, I believe that the presence of a corporation (WB) muddies the waters significantly.
Other than their possible interest as whatevers of the movies, I scratch my head even wondering what the hell business of WB it even is to be worrying about the lexicon in the first place.
Why WB is even trying to exert influence on JK is beyond me unless it's the sort of gung-ho squashing that the RIAA is so fond of.
Given our corrent society, I wouldn't trust ANY corporation farther than I could throw it, at least not without giving its articles of incorporation and bylaws a CLOSE inspection.
It's trolls like you that make censorship of any sort desirable.
However, I agree with what you are trying to say.
"Not only that, but if we add up all the patents, lawsuits, legal fee's, EULA's, NDA's, DRM, and all the other bullshit we can see how "efficient" captialism is, it's a load of shit. The modern corporation as well as the patent/copyright system is one of the most fucked up entities ever. Anyone who says the market is "efficient" means the small bastardized E, in terms of engineering and in terms of nature, it's nowhere near such things."
What you seem to be forgetting is that the pervasiveness of said patents, copyrights, etc etc etc also grant the possessing companies monopoly positions in their markets. And a monopoly dominated industry and/or market is, by definition, not competitive.
Your attack on competition as the foundation of capitalism fails because the evidence you use against it is completely irrelevant. Your evidence attacks monopoly, not competition. There's even cases where the "market" self-corrects even against such monopolies. For example, companies like the RIAA are starting to get the crap kicked out of them by ex-sheep who are fed up with getting abused. SCO finally screwed the wrong arse and got castrated by Novell. These are just examples of the "inefficient market" actually doing its job.
A capitalist market, which according to you implies competition, would work. The reason that "capitalism" doesn't work is that monopoly, power-hungry, government-bedsharing companies are preventing capitalistic competition from actually working.
Companies like the RIAA, Microsoft, and so on are sharing pockets with the government so much that they are effectively part of it. Now, given that, how could we call our system "capitalist" in the first place? I propose that, due to improper relations between companies and the feds, our market fails at one of the key prerequisites to qualify as "capitalist", namely, the minimalist involvement in the market by the "government".
And having 3 different platforms is really not that bad. Apple hardware specializes in high-end graphics. PC's are the workhorses in business. I would rather have Apple take care of the artsy fartsy type market needs and PC's take care of the number-crunchy boring stuff. I call it specialzaton where specialization is needed. I myself have both a PC and an iMac, both of which I wouldn't mind running.
As far as linux is concerned, IMO it is yet another "market self-correction" triggered by the abusiveness of the Window$ regime.
Um, isn't the DMCA Safe Harbor stuff a well known exception to that "strict liability" stuff?
Don't you mean a "clue by four"?
More apt to idiots who don't secure passwords properly, don't you think?
That would be a good analogy for internet.
Currently, I have Charter Communications with a 5 G-bit/sec provision. Normally, it would cost me 50 bucks, but I got a special "FOAF" deal for only 20 bucks.
Try as I might, I can never go above 5Gb/sec, so I'm capped.
My capping, however, is fixed, and automatic. I can't download 'too much' simply because I'm throttled at 5Gb/sec. Not bad, considering all I want is to be able to do apt-get, mirror some RFC's, and maybe do a bittorrent eventually.
I like my service, becuase I simply have to wait for the stuff to get through my pipe. However, knowing that my provider has a realtime throttle as opposed to a monthly cap, means that I won't be getting any nasty surprises.
Now, I do suffer from not using my bandwidth all the time...but I got the slowest "provison" they ahd to offer, and for someone unfortunate enough to not even have dialup, it's really sweet.
I like my service because there are no surprises. And I was geeky enough to set up my own internet even though the install guys couldn't figure out my linux box.
The funny bit was when they asked me if I had "XP or vista", and I went "huh? oh, neither I use linux".
Install guys: uh, wtf?
But yeah, with Charter Communications, there are no surprises.
Well MS already ruined their opening olympic ceremony with a nice fat BSOD...
Actually, spammers don't get their profits from you actually receiving it. That's actually one of the last things on their minds.
Spammers, through the usage of botnets and other means, take business from shady dealers who are trying to sell the crap in the first place.
The spammer profits by sending the emails on behalf of Huge Penis Incorporated, and they really couldn't give a damn whether anyone actually buys the stuff. It's pure profit margin for the spammer no matter how many people actually bother to act.
Of course, they have to keep up appearances. Emails not getting through makes their reputation as spammers go down...so they have to do something just to make themselves look marketable to companies who push the stuff. But as far as actual ROI, that's really not the spammer's concern. They don't have to reach you, they just have to make their clients think they are.
The company that sells the stuff loses becuase nobody gives a crap about their stuff. The poor hapless souls with stuffed inbuxes lose because their email has been overrun. The only winner is the spammer who was paid money to send the junk mail, as well as any botnet operators he rents from.
Seriously, it's a spammer. Do you think anyone who is nasty enough to flood our inboxes and associate with botnet operators would actually give a crap about how profitable he is making his "clients" by running ads for them?
You may find it amusing to use sarcasm, however, it wasn't quite such a laughable matter for Galileo.
I only hope that modern times are better. Given our history of persecution, I have my doubts.
And FYI, there have been cases of teachers being wrong. Just recently in spring quarter in Calculus II, I caught my teacher making a major blunder on a function's graph. I called him out on it, my classmate was pretty much annoyed at my not letting it go. When I was proven right, I was vindicated.
Had my instructor been dictatorial, I would likely have flunked that class. Unfortunately, there are probably cases where creative thought is shunned. It may just be rumor, but I have a feeling that kids in, say, North Korea do not enjoy such freedom.
What I have a problem with is the fact that evolution, already being entrenched, enjoys so much popularity that it is automatically given the benefit of the doubt. Anything else gets saddled with the burden of proof.
Until someone actually PROVES evolution, doesn't hte burden of proof remain against it?
There are many cases in law where the burden of proof crushes those who cannot bear it, and legal precedent is established in many cases, irreversibly, because "you just couldn't prove it". With "statutes of repose", basically whatever the judge decides, given his limited insight into the facts of the case, becomes the "truth", and even if the judge gets something factually wrong (or, the jury), in many cases you cannot appeal a finding of fact, because the legal system arrogantly presumes the word of a jury or judge to be supreme and infallible.
Science can work the same way if the "jury" happens to be the status quo believing community. Many cases arise where brilliant minds such as Galileo are shunned, and in some cases, even persecuted for daring to contradict established doctrine. People were hanged, drawn, and quartered for that...not merely embarrassed in a debate.
I see the same thing happening today. Personally, I do not know one way or the other about evolution OR intelligent design. However, since nobody has proven EITHER of them, I find it unfair that evolution enjoys a presumption of being right, while anything else that goes against it must bear a greater burden of proof. As far as I'm concerned, they are BOTH theories and they should BOTH be treated skeptically, instead of one or the other being paraded out as fact.
Not believing in evolution has real consequences. In science class, you damn well say and write whatever the teacher tells you to. If the book says the statue of liberty is made of stone (this happened once), you lose points on a test if you tell the truth. Unless, of course, you challenge it. At that point however, you become a nail waiting to be pounded down. Authority figures can and do influence knowledge using criteria other than truth.
So here we have students being indoctrinated by evolution, which I have personally seen as introduced as FACT, not THEORY. You can flunk science class if you don't agree with what your teacher says.
What about all of us geeks that actually have to WRITE and TEST the crap that y'all are supposed to install?
Should we run GCC as root?
No...not a good idea.
Leave gcc running as a normal user. You only need root to "install", aka "make install" in most cases, and there it's usually just a simple file copy operation.
Uh, that's not jeopardy, exactly.
I do agree with your suggestion though.
Instead of just letting people secure judgements, why not make them secured debts?
RIAA wrongly sues John Doe, John Doe wins and collects attorney fees, then here's what should happen. John Doe should get a lien on the copyright the RIAA alleged he broke until his expenses and damages (which should include some punitives for malicious prosecution) are paid.
And...until the RIAA pays the lien off, they don't get to collect one red cent of damages for future alleged infringement of that copyright until they pay off the lien.
Sure, try to squeeze into a market that has high entry costs, and requires you to have a tug-o-war with an entrenched monopoly over market share.
You get even a toe on their turf and you'll be shooed out faster than you can blink an eye.
Sure, if comcast pisses off enough customers, you may get lucky. But try surviving the blackballing and possible sabotage/cold shoulder upstream/smear campaigns and even getting established enough to get noticed.
If however, you can do it, then yay :)
It is theft...theft of revenue.
You are not depriving the owner of property, but you are wrongfully gaining. It's not right for you to steal, because you're screwing the seller out of the royalties they could have gotten from you had you paid for them fair and square.
It has to be worth something to you (otherwise you wouldn't steal it), so the fact that you're not willing to pay doesn't make it worthless.
Mind you, I think that copyright (aka "patent") law is a crock of shit. But that does not make it right to steal.
I still think the RIAA is a crock of shit. But two wrongs do not make a right.
I believe it's wrong to infringe copyright. But I will quite readily assert and admit that the RIAA is the greater of two evils.
Besides...why give them ammunition?
If MediaSentry hacked her to frame her, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
R3 got DoS'ed by them, after all.