I really wonder how they console the idea there are different gods and theirs' the best yet he needs their feeble human help to save his face.
console
1/knsol/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sohl] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -soled, -soling.
to alleviate or lessen the grief, sorrow, or disappointment of; give solace or comfort: Only his children could console him when his wife died.
Woman Jailed For Starting Office Fire To Leave Work Early
Sorry to nitpick, but... Since people in jail work (what, you've never heard of a chain gang?), the headline can be parsed as "Woman, jailed for starting office fire, to leave work early" instead of the more plausible (and newsworthy) "Woman jailed, for starting office fire to leave work early".
I'd wager most IT professionals know that one too.
Since it was established fairly on that PDI is Pentaho Data Integration (damn, first time I saw it I coulda sworn it was "pendejo"), I'm not really sure what exactly your bitch is.
Uh, because it's not obvious to non-data-warehousing weenies that semantically there's any intersection/equivalence between the set ("data", "integration") and some other (undefined) set consisting of terms beginning with the letters "e", "t" and "l"? Maybe?
Sure, any or all of this stuff can be Google'd/Wikipedia'ed/etc., but does one want to go through that for an article summary? Especially when it would have been soooo easy to just expand the acronym...
As a gamer, I've discovered that not only can I control my dreams, but I've actually found several cheat codes that have allowed me to fulfill those dreams in real life. Example: I can cast fireballs from my fingertips in real life, so don't piss me off, ok?
Ob. Pet Peeve: (mis)characterizing all computer games with a rich video element as "videogames". Is WoW, for example, really a "video" game? Is the video the main point of playing the game, the thing that keeps people grinding away at for 30 hours a week or more, for years of their lives? I don't think so. The video component of the game isn't even close to being photorealistic, nor does it try to be...
I.e. "less government", in the current prevailing one-dimensional view of U.S. politics (where the only meaningful question to be asked is how "big" government should be; as if something as complex and multi-dimensional as the government of the greatest nation on Earth could be reduced to a single axis or scale).
Or, perhaps it didn't occur to you that lawsuits, and the liability concepts on which they are premised, are things that courts adjudicate and enforce, and courts are government entities.
and years of subsidies (implicit and explicit)
If by "subsidies" you mean "paid less taxes", then surely that is "less government" as well, right?
and other anticompetitive, discipline-weakening interventions.
Seriously, I laughed out loud. You think oil companies, of all the industries we have, would, with less government intervention, develop competitiveness and discipline on their own? Further proof that Libertarians exist in some reality-distortion bubble.
But at least I admire your courage in speaking up and trying to offer explanations, in the face of a flagrant failure of Big Business to do The Right Thing on its own. Most Libertarians just whistle to themselves and look the other way, when faced with such counterexamples to their distorted world view.
You describe the choice as between the free market and government oversight. In fact, the free market is not one of the choices offered, but the two main political subdivisions have an interest in making it seem that way.
While "free market" is obviously a relative term, I think it's quite obvious at this point, to those who don't wear Libertarian-colored glasses, that the oil industry didn't pay enough attention here to safety nor did they develop credible contingency plans for disasters. While I don't see anyone suggesting the one extreme of a complete nationalization/takeover of the oil industry, I do think that an increase in government regulation/oversight is called for, and, knee-jerk politics being knee-jerk politics, probably inevitable regardless of what we ordinary peons prefer. So the oil companies may have to eke out their billions of $$s of profits under a slightly-less "free" regime than that to which they have become accustomed. Quel dommage.
Assuming the sky-fairy is Allah, God, whatever, then it's not relevant when Muhammad was born. I don't know that "bronze age" is accurate, but medieval is definitely late.
Hmmm... did you mean "Allah" the (according to believers) immortal, eternal entity, which transcends all (humanocentric) ages, Bronze, Iron, Medieval, Modern, whatever?
Or did you perhaps instead mean "Allah", the (according to non-believers) mental construct, which didn't really get any specificity or detail or widespread popularity until Islam came along, some time during or after the life of Muhammad the (alleged) prophet?
they're not killing US citizens, they're killing enemy combatants
I hereby designate you as an "enemy combatant". How does it feel to suddenly lose all of your constitutional rights?
Oh, and don't bother trying to challenge the designation, because it's completely unappealable and outside of our normal legal framework. Just deal with it, get your affairs in order, and if you hear a drone overhead, say your last prayers (if you happen to believe in that kind of thing).
SCO could probably make far more by selling their "top 100" domain name -- to then be used for a website ridiculing/lambasting Darl McBride et al -- then they could ever hope to make litigating over their dubious-at-best intellectual property claims...
This analysis is superficial. You can't just carve up a brand name into its component parts and expect to discern familiarity, recognition, dilution, infringement etc. just by looking at the parts.
Take, for example, Old Navy. Both of those words are in common usage and using neither of them, considered in isolation, would raise any trademark issues. But when you combine the words, you get something of a unique character, which is trademarked and widely-recognized among consumers.
For that matter, consider "slash" and "dot"...
I agree that the issues would be much clearer if Google had called their phone "Nexus Six", and if the product were to resemble a robot more than it actually does (e.g. if it had wheels and could move around autonomously). But Google did call the technology "Android", so they deliberately made the association, and I think (but IANAL) Mr. Dick's estate has a plausible, if not watertight claim of trademark infringement/dilution
i can take your computer off your desk. that's obviously theft. but what if i changed your password and put a postit note on your computer saying "i don't think you have a right to run your own computer, come talk to me first"
that's the same as if i had taken it physically: i am depriving you of your property, which is as criminal as physically taking it
Two problems with your analogy:
Passwords to network equipment are typically not necessary for their day-to-day functions (e.g. routing or switching packets), only for troubleshooting, upgrades or changes to the network architecture/topology. The network in question could probably have -- and, according to some reports, did -- run for weeks or months just fine, even if no-one had the passwords.
There is no evidence in the record, of which I'm aware, that Terry intentionally changed the passwords in order to prevent certain individuals from accessing the equipment, and in anticipation of being terminated. The people demanding the passwords, I believe, had never previously had them, so this would have been an expansion of the access that they had previously been granted, if any. This makes it very different from the analogy you presented, where someone had a "settled expectation" of access, which was then deliberately and explicitly revoked/denied by the perpetrator. When accusing someone of "denying service", one needs to be careful to define what actually constitutes "service" in a particular context. Making a PC unusable that someone was using regularly as a normal part of their job, is clearly a denial of service. Refusing to open up access to critical network infrastructure, to persons unknown or of questionable qualifications and trust, and potentially (as some have alleged) in direct violation of the employer's own published policies and procedures, is hardly "denial of service". At most, it's a preservation of the status quo, and in fact, keeping that access restricted may be the most service-enhancing option available.
You've obviously already prejudged him. "He committed a crime".
But it's an open question, legally, whether refusing to divulge passwords constitutes "denying service... to authorized users" of that network. The "denying service" charge is, after all, the only one of the original charges that hasn't been thrown out by the judge.
I think everyone agrees that the employment separation could have been handled more calmly and professionally. But what's of more legal importance are the post-separation consequences of Terry refusing to hand over the passwords. Was there a "denial of service"? Or not? If Terry's former managers wanted to minimize the "denial(s) of service", presumably they could have carefully reset-to-default and reconfigured the pieces of the network infrastructure for which they didn't have passwords. Sure, that might be costly and time-consuming, but that's what you get when you force out your main network wizard under tumultuous circumstances. Maybe they'll think twice about it next time...
Of secondary importance, I would think, would be Terry's intent in refusing to hand over the passwords. Did he intend, by doing so, to cause a "denial of service"? Or, did he have a good faith belief that divulging the passwords, to the person or persons requesting them, would actually cause more harm to the network -- more "denials of service" -- than keeping them secret?
Let's not forget that Terry did eventually divulge the passwords to the mayor. So it was really more a question of "who" and "when", than "whether" he would eventually give them up. He may have believed that Gavin Newsom was the only person in the city administration with enough clout to hold the network staff responsible if they took those passwords and used them to make a complete mess of the network that Terry worked so hard to build up.
The progress of the trial should be quite interesting. Despite circletimessquare's superficial analysis, there are some important legal and ethical issues being tested here.
Why does the Federal *TRADE* Commission give a fuck what is going on with kids in online settings? Isn't this the domain of the FCC?
Actually, it makes perfect sense. "Bad" content falls under Consumer Protection, regardless of how that content is accessed. The FCC only has some specific mandates relating to digital content, e.g. "broadcast decency".
If I had a nickel for every time someone in our enterprise said "it's just for private communication", then next thing I know they're wanting to talk to a business partner, needing firewall rules opened up, name resolution, etc.
It's just a number. Pick a reasonable one. It's not that difficult...
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here, and with the usual IANAL disclaimer...
If one disregards the statement by Mark Hecht -- which carries no legal weight whatsoever -- this decision appears to condone "luring" as an stacked charge, i.e. a charge that's added to another charge, like "committing a felony with a firearm" is added to an ordinary felony charge.
If so, then all of these civil-liberties concerns about all conversations between adults and children being criminalized, are overblown. If one is found guilty of abusing or exploiting a child, and if evidence of past contact with the child over the Internet is found, then that contact can (retroactively) be charged as "luring", along with the regular prosecution of the abuse or exploitation. But, in the usual case of an adult talking to a child, that's still perfectly legal. Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, most adults who talk to children, don't end up exploiting or abusing them.
And Mark Hecht should STFU until he has something intelligent to say
It would be safer to pick something that isn't already assigned. If everyone just picked arbitrary ports for their "private" communications, there would be pandemonium. Sniffers also use this registry for displaying packets properly in "user-friendly" formats. The IANA registry exists for a reason.
The mother crocodile reacts because she thinks you are going to harm her young in some tangible, concrete way
Most of these "child-protection" measures exist because there is a social stigma attached to adults having sex with children
The former is driven by a biological imperative, the latter is not; it's socially-constructed
In fact, one could argue that the general biological imperative for the male of the species to spread his genetic code far and wide actually explains why many/most adult males are aroused by the sight/thought/presence of nubile teen females, and some percentage of those will, despite the social taboos, act on those impulses.So, when viewed through the narrow lens of "biological imperatives", it's actually more expected that these liaisons occur than for them to be prevented. More "natural", as it were.
(I'm sure those who read this casually, or selectively, will be aghast at the thought that Wowlapalooza is claiming that raping children is "natural". But that misses the point that I'm trying to make here; that viewing a complex, multi-variable issue like protecting children from abuse, from one limited, academic perspective like "biological imperatives", is superficial, does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and can lead to surprising, perhaps even repugnant conclusions. This reductio ad absurdum is offered in direct opposition to circletimessquare's approach, to which I was directly responding.)
Google has a special "Cluefulness Test" when it comes to IPv6: http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/. In order to get IPv6 resolution, you need to register the source addresses of your nameservers with them, and claim/prove that you and your provider have "good" IPv6 connectivity to Google. You're also expected to troubleshoot any IPv6 problems that may occur, as opposed to your clueless users bugging Google directly about it.
If you don't meet those criteria, you're still welcome to use ipv6.google.com for searches, of course. But that's not the whole suite of Google tools/products, and the URL is just not as convenient...
There's nothing gender-specific about the term "fanboy", really. It's a state of mind or -- as some may prefer to characterize it -- a mental defect.
Yes, I know the meaning of the word "wench". A minor in English Lit takes cares of such details.
I have long since abandoned the practice of trying to divine a person's actual gender from their username/screenname.
Trade chat is usually sophmoric, inane, puerile, but it does have its moments, the occasional pearl amidst the swine. Kind of like Slashdot comments, really...
Nyhm fanboys are total losers and should stay far away from the Horde trade channel of Alleria, unless they're masochists looking for a fresh round of verbal abuse from us "locals". IMO, there should be an achievement for successfully driving clueless noobs from a server.
One derivation I found for the word "nacent" was Scottish "na-cent", i.e. "not a cent", i.e. poor.
I don't think the Slashdot article submitter meant to imply that ChromeOS was "poor". Methinks they meant "nascent". That would make a lot more sense (cents?)..
Oh, wait, I just remembered I'm a forty-something guy, instead of a 12-year-old girl. Maybe I just misinterpreted something somebody said, or maybe my luck is actually turning for the better...
Slashdot Mirror
I really wonder how they console the idea there are different gods and theirs' the best yet he needs their feeble human help to save his face.
console
1 /knsol/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sohl] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -soled, -soling.
to alleviate or lessen the grief, sorrow, or disappointment of; give solace or comfort: Only his children could console him when his wife died.
Perhaps you meant "reconcile"?
Woman Jailed For Starting Office Fire To Leave Work Early
Sorry to nitpick, but... Since people in jail work (what, you've never heard of a chain gang?), the headline can be parsed as "Woman, jailed for starting office fire, to leave work early" instead of the more plausible (and newsworthy) "Woman jailed, for starting office fire to leave work early".
You must be new here.
Do you need a de-acronymization of SQL?
I'd wager most IT professionals know that one.
Do you need a de-acronymization of XML?
I'd wager most IT professionals know that one too.
Since it was established fairly on that PDI is Pentaho Data Integration (damn, first time I saw it I coulda sworn it was "pendejo"), I'm not really sure what exactly your bitch is.
Uh, because it's not obvious to non-data-warehousing weenies that semantically there's any intersection/equivalence between the set ("data", "integration") and some other (undefined) set consisting of terms beginning with the letters "e", "t" and "l"? Maybe?
Sure, any or all of this stuff can be Google'd/Wikipedia'ed/etc., but does one want to go through that for an article summary? Especially when it would have been soooo easy to just expand the acronym...
As a gamer, I've discovered that not only can I control my dreams, but I've actually found several cheat codes that have allowed me to fulfill those dreams in real life. Example: I can cast fireballs from my fingertips in real life, so don't piss me off, ok?
Ob. Pet Peeve: (mis)characterizing all computer games with a rich video element as "videogames". Is WoW, for example, really a "video" game? Is the video the main point of playing the game, the thing that keeps people grinding away at for 30 hours a week or more, for years of their lives? I don't think so. The video component of the game isn't even close to being photorealistic, nor does it try to be...
See limitations on liability from spills
I.e. "less government", in the current prevailing one-dimensional view of U.S. politics (where the only meaningful question to be asked is how "big" government should be; as if something as complex and multi-dimensional as the government of the greatest nation on Earth could be reduced to a single axis or scale). Or, perhaps it didn't occur to you that lawsuits, and the liability concepts on which they are premised, are things that courts adjudicate and enforce, and courts are government entities.
and years of subsidies (implicit and explicit)
If by "subsidies" you mean "paid less taxes", then surely that is "less government" as well, right?
and other anticompetitive, discipline-weakening interventions.
Seriously, I laughed out loud. You think oil companies, of all the industries we have, would, with less government intervention, develop competitiveness and discipline on their own? Further proof that Libertarians exist in some reality-distortion bubble.
But at least I admire your courage in speaking up and trying to offer explanations, in the face of a flagrant failure of Big Business to do The Right Thing on its own. Most Libertarians just whistle to themselves and look the other way, when faced with such counterexamples to their distorted world view.
You describe the choice as between the free market and government oversight. In fact, the free market is not one of the choices offered, but the two main political subdivisions have an interest in making it seem that way.
While "free market" is obviously a relative term, I think it's quite obvious at this point, to those who don't wear Libertarian-colored glasses, that the oil industry didn't pay enough attention here to safety nor did they develop credible contingency plans for disasters. While I don't see anyone suggesting the one extreme of a complete nationalization/takeover of the oil industry, I do think that an increase in government regulation/oversight is called for, and, knee-jerk politics being knee-jerk politics, probably inevitable regardless of what we ordinary peons prefer. So the oil companies may have to eke out their billions of $$s of profits under a slightly-less "free" regime than that to which they have become accustomed. Quel dommage.
Assuming the sky-fairy is Allah, God, whatever, then it's not relevant when Muhammad was born. I don't know that "bronze age" is accurate, but medieval is definitely late.
Hmmm... did you mean "Allah" the (according to believers) immortal, eternal entity, which transcends all (humanocentric) ages, Bronze, Iron, Medieval, Modern, whatever?
Or did you perhaps instead mean "Allah", the (according to non-believers) mental construct, which didn't really get any specificity or detail or widespread popularity until Islam came along, some time during or after the life of Muhammad the (alleged) prophet?
Either way, "Bronze Age" is wrong
When someone calls upon the nut-jobs of the world to murder you because you pissed off their bronze-age sky fairy,
I'm an Atheist myself, but to exactly what "bronze-age sky fairy" are you referring?
The Bronze Age ended more than a millenium before the birth of Muhammad.
If you're going to disparage a religion, at least try to educate yourself minimally about it. Be a responsible Atheist.
Perhaps "medieval sky fairy" would be more appropriate
Clones are people two.
In (non-)Soviet Russia, sites clone YOU
they're not killing US citizens, they're killing enemy combatants
I hereby designate you as an "enemy combatant". How does it feel to suddenly lose all of your constitutional rights?
Oh, and don't bother trying to challenge the designation, because it's completely unappealable and outside of our normal legal framework. Just deal with it, get your affairs in order, and if you hear a drone overhead, say your last prayers (if you happen to believe in that kind of thing).
88. 03-Sep-1987 SCO.COM
SCO could probably make far more by selling their "top 100" domain name -- to then be used for a website ridiculing/lambasting Darl McBride et al -- then they could ever hope to make litigating over their dubious-at-best intellectual property claims...
And, not surprisingly, Paul is throwing spitballs at the proposal in the IETF working group mailing list. Whoda thunk it?
This analysis is superficial. You can't just carve up a brand name into its component parts and expect to discern familiarity, recognition, dilution, infringement etc. just by looking at the parts.
Take, for example, Old Navy. Both of those words are in common usage and using neither of them, considered in isolation, would raise any trademark issues. But when you combine the words, you get something of a unique character, which is trademarked and widely-recognized among consumers.
For that matter, consider "slash" and "dot"...
I agree that the issues would be much clearer if Google had called their phone "Nexus Six", and if the product were to resemble a robot more than it actually does (e.g. if it had wheels and could move around autonomously). But Google did call the technology "Android", so they deliberately made the association, and I think (but IANAL) Mr. Dick's estate has a plausible, if not watertight claim of trademark infringement/dilution
i can take your computer off your desk. that's obviously theft. but what if i changed your password and put a postit note on your computer saying "i don't think you have a right to run your own computer, come talk to me first"
that's the same as if i had taken it physically: i am depriving you of your property, which is as criminal as physically taking it
Two problems with your analogy:
You've obviously already prejudged him. "He committed a crime".
But it's an open question, legally, whether refusing to divulge passwords constitutes "denying service ... to authorized users" of that network. The "denying service" charge is, after all, the only one of the original charges that hasn't been thrown out by the judge.
I think everyone agrees that the employment separation could have been handled more calmly and professionally. But what's of more legal importance are the post-separation consequences of Terry refusing to hand over the passwords. Was there a "denial of service"? Or not? If Terry's former managers wanted to minimize the "denial(s) of service", presumably they could have carefully reset-to-default and reconfigured the pieces of the network infrastructure for which they didn't have passwords. Sure, that might be costly and time-consuming, but that's what you get when you force out your main network wizard under tumultuous circumstances. Maybe they'll think twice about it next time...
Of secondary importance, I would think, would be Terry's intent in refusing to hand over the passwords. Did he intend, by doing so, to cause a "denial of service"? Or, did he have a good faith belief that divulging the passwords, to the person or persons requesting them, would actually cause more harm to the network -- more "denials of service" -- than keeping them secret?
Let's not forget that Terry did eventually divulge the passwords to the mayor. So it was really more a question of "who" and "when", than "whether" he would eventually give them up. He may have believed that Gavin Newsom was the only person in the city administration with enough clout to hold the network staff responsible if they took those passwords and used them to make a complete mess of the network that Terry worked so hard to build up.
The progress of the trial should be quite interesting. Despite circletimessquare's superficial analysis, there are some important legal and ethical issues being tested here.
Why does the Federal *TRADE* Commission give a fuck what is going on with kids in online settings? Isn't this the domain of the FCC?
Actually, it makes perfect sense. "Bad" content falls under Consumer Protection, regardless of how that content is accessed. The FCC only has some specific mandates relating to digital content, e.g. "broadcast decency".
If I had a nickel for every time someone in our enterprise said "it's just for private communication", then next thing I know they're wanting to talk to a business partner, needing firewall rules opened up, name resolution, etc.
It's just a number. Pick a reasonable one. It's not that difficult...
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here, and with the usual IANAL disclaimer...
If one disregards the statement by Mark Hecht -- which carries no legal weight whatsoever -- this decision appears to condone "luring" as an stacked charge, i.e. a charge that's added to another charge, like "committing a felony with a firearm" is added to an ordinary felony charge.
If so, then all of these civil-liberties concerns about all conversations between adults and children being criminalized, are overblown. If one is found guilty of abusing or exploiting a child, and if evidence of past contact with the child over the Internet is found, then that contact can (retroactively) be charged as "luring", along with the regular prosecution of the abuse or exploitation. But, in the usual case of an adult talking to a child, that's still perfectly legal. Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, most adults who talk to children, don't end up exploiting or abusing them.
And Mark Hecht should STFU until he has something intelligent to say
Port 54 is assigned by IANA for "XNS Clearinghouse". See http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
It would be safer to pick something that isn't already assigned. If everyone just picked arbitrary ports for their "private" communications, there would be pandemonium. Sniffers also use this registry for displaying packets properly in "user-friendly" formats. The IANA registry exists for a reason.
The mother crocodile reacts because she thinks you are going to harm her young in some tangible, concrete way
Most of these "child-protection" measures exist because there is a social stigma attached to adults having sex with children
The former is driven by a biological imperative, the latter is not; it's socially-constructed
In fact, one could argue that the general biological imperative for the male of the species to spread his genetic code far and wide actually explains why many/most adult males are aroused by the sight/thought/presence of nubile teen females, and some percentage of those will, despite the social taboos, act on those impulses.So, when viewed through the narrow lens of "biological imperatives", it's actually more expected that these liaisons occur than for them to be prevented. More "natural", as it were.
(I'm sure those who read this casually, or selectively, will be aghast at the thought that Wowlapalooza is claiming that raping children is "natural". But that misses the point that I'm trying to make here; that viewing a complex, multi-variable issue like protecting children from abuse, from one limited, academic perspective like "biological imperatives", is superficial, does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and can lead to surprising, perhaps even repugnant conclusions. This reductio ad absurdum is offered in direct opposition to circletimessquare's approach, to which I was directly responding.)
Google has a special "Cluefulness Test" when it comes to IPv6: http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/. In order to get IPv6 resolution, you need to register the source addresses of your nameservers with them, and claim/prove that you and your provider have "good" IPv6 connectivity to Google. You're also expected to troubleshoot any IPv6 problems that may occur, as opposed to your clueless users bugging Google directly about it.
If you don't meet those criteria, you're still welcome to use ipv6.google.com for searches, of course. But that's not the whole suite of Google tools/products, and the URL is just not as convenient...
Nyhm fanboys are total losers and should stay far away from the Horde trade channel of Alleria, unless they're masochists looking for a fresh round of verbal abuse from us "locals". IMO, there should be an achievement for successfully driving clueless noobs from a server.
One derivation I found for the word "nacent" was Scottish "na-cent", i.e. "not a cent", i.e. poor.
I don't think the Slashdot article submitter meant to imply that ChromeOS was "poor". Methinks they meant "nascent". That would make a lot more sense (cents?)..
Halp! Halp! I'm being groomed online!
Oh, wait, I just remembered I'm a forty-something guy, instead of a 12-year-old girl. Maybe I just misinterpreted something somebody said, or maybe my luck is actually turning for the better...