Most people that need experimental drugs are in no shape to be driving a truck.
Heck, even if one was on such a drug and physically capable, they wouldn't pass the medical requirements. You need a certain level of health to be allowed to drive a truck.
Dr. - My CYA mentality, malpractice insurance woes, stodgy conservatism that believes 1950's era medical treatment is the way to go, pharmaceutical dinners, incentives and kickbacks, drug company propaganda, current issue hysteria (your obesity is why your arm is jacked up, not the 38 caliber bullet imbedded within), political reasoning (I don't like abortion - therefore the morning after pill is unsafe), lack of understanding of anything more modern or technological than a mercury sphyg... (uh the blood pressure thing), HMO/Medicare/other insurance restrictions and payback rates and kickbacks, my need to pay off my Ferrari and yacht, the fact I don't have time to figure out what is wrong with your or stay current on effective therapies, ego and pride which won't let me admit that people other than I have good ideas I didn't already know about and the fact I don't care if you live or die ever since med school, life, and my practice killed any soul I had...
Look at this site for info on how med school destroys doctors:
(even for non-experimental treatments). Of course, if it is a BIG money maker ("weight loss surgery" who cares about risk - if we kill you - you can't sue and we are already paid).
If medicine were a patient, it would belong in the ICU.
P.S. Not all doctor's are bad. But enough are. And a bad doctor is much worse for you than a bad mechanic.
If they were really smart about it, they'd get a business license, become a security company, offer to test their security for a nominal fee, draw up a contract and get paid for it. Never mind awards or credits, they'd have money and something good to put on their resume.
Making sure security fixes don't break anything is good - I agree - no excuse to not install it.
They should release an optional update that keeps one secure and gets back some performance even if it risks breakage.
So everyone is secure, and those that want some performance back can get it.
As for setuid and setgid, don't allow 2 processes on the core unless all of the uids/gids match.
Restrictive yes, but likely a good compromise.
I also like what someone else suggested: Only allow 2 processes to share a core if they are allowed to debug each other. That reuses security infrastructure quite nicely,
Remapped sectors can make what used to be an efficient access pattern less so.
Having the OS know about the bad sectors and do its own remapping will allow head movement optimization routines in the OS to know the real situation - and thus bad sectors won't slow down access as much, since the OS knows where the drive will be seeking to and can thus minimize the amount of head travel needed.
They should ask the U.S. Department of State if unsure.
If still unsure, they should step away from the situation.
People's responsibility is to their own country first.
US Groups need to follow US laws and help US interests.
If people in other countries need help, primary responsbility lies with those in those countries.
If that country's gov't (or legitimate substitution thereof if the gov't is not legitimate) needs help, it should contact the U.S. Department of State.
Having humanitarian groups circumvent controls can aid terrorist interests, which can result in terrorist attacks against the US, including against civilian targets and using weapons of mass destruction.
Please note, I am pro-freedom, anti-DMCA, etc. Yet, I must support section 805. Why? The EFF's own criticism shows why.
805 criminalizes "expert advice and assistance", considering it "material support of terrorism".
What does this mean?
"Material support" means significantly aiding the interests of an entity.
"Expert advice and assistance" means high level advice. This isn't political speech (e.g. "The IRA/Hamas/Al Qaeda is right/wrong/etc"!), this is high-level targeted speech (e.g. "chemical X will work better in that bomb").
"Expert advice and assistance", related to computers, would be something you'd pay for, such as having a consultant advise you, sending a question via email to a paid service,etc.
This can directly and significantly aid an entity.
The EFF criticizes restrictions on aiding terrorist groups with non-terrorist activities. Is this restriction bad? No. Why not? Because the non-terrorist activities aid the groups' image which helps them ultimately recruit members (such as future September 11 type hijackers, etc) and also, aiding them in those activities means they can spend less resources on them and reallocate those resources towards terrorist activities.
Section 805 is a needed weapon in the fight against terror. The First Amendment protects political and many other types of speech. Section 805 does not infringe it. The First Amendment doesn't protect one giving expert advice to terror groups. The First Amendment doesn't protect against breaking into a system - even if it is only done using computer commands (which can count as speech - a recent case said code is speech).
Section 805 just prevents you from aiding and abetting.
The Constitution prohibits treason ("aid and comfort to the enemy").
People and entities that want to harm or destroy the US are the enemy.
Let's concentrate on the cases where other parts of the USA PATRIOT act was abused in order to suppress non-terrorist activites and target people uninvolved in terror, and fight bad laws like the DMCA, NET act, etc.
Don't waste time and if you win, weaken our security by attacking section 805.
Section 209 -- Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant.
Why was this ever enacted? Doesn't current law allow it even without the USA PATRIOT act? Isn't anything allowed to be searched and seized with a warrant? And things in storage already have a lower protection under law than things in transit (anyone know why?).
Most open source projects are being damaged from lack of development. Most of sourceforge is dead projects.
Most open source projects would benefit from any development, even bad development would attract attention - which would mean QA-ing and fixing the bad code and attracting good coders to the project. People ignore projects (on sourceforge and elsewhere) where nothing is happening. No one wants to be the only coder or one of a very few on a project apparently no one cares enough about to support or to recruit programmers for.
If an open source project is viable enough where new code could actually do more harm than good (i.e. it is viable enough to be harm-able) then it has enough safeguards against bad code harming the project that it isn't too big a concern. Bad code doesn't get into Linux (unless it is from one of the big names on the project - but that is the subject of another post - and I don't want a Flamebait mod on this one.;)
Slashdot Mirror
West Nile virus!
Most people that need experimental drugs are in no shape to be driving a truck.
Heck, even if one was on such a drug and physically capable, they wouldn't pass the medical requirements. You need a certain level of health to be allowed to drive a truck.
Sorry my post got mangled - the link and the site should've been below that sentence.
If Slashdot preview didn't take over a minute to come up, maybe I could use it more often!
maybe MySQL isn't so fast after all.
More like this:
Dr. - My CYA mentality, malpractice insurance woes, stodgy conservatism that believes 1950's era medical treatment is the way to go, pharmaceutical dinners, incentives and kickbacks, drug company propaganda, current issue hysteria (your obesity is why your arm is jacked up, not the 38 caliber bullet imbedded within), political reasoning (I don't like abortion - therefore the morning after pill is unsafe), lack of understanding of anything more modern or technological than a mercury sphyg... (uh the blood pressure thing), HMO/Medicare/other insurance restrictions and payback rates and kickbacks, my need to pay off my Ferrari and yacht, the fact I don't have time to figure out what is wrong with your or stay current on effective therapies, ego and pride which won't let me admit that people other than I have good ideas I didn't already know about and the fact I don't care if you live or die ever since med school, life, and my practice killed any soul I had...
Look at this site for info on how med school destroys doctors:
http://upalumni.org/medschool/
has led me to believe that the treatment you are requesting is too risky.
(even for non-experimental treatments). Of course, if it is a BIG money maker ("weight loss surgery" who cares about risk - if we kill you - you can't sue and we are already paid).
If medicine were a patient, it would belong in the ICU.
P.S. Not all doctor's are bad. But enough are. And a bad doctor is much worse for you than a bad mechanic.
There are far more drunks than PCP users.
(anyone still use PCP out there?)
Are there PROPORTIONALLY more people killed by drunks than PCP users is the question you need to ask.
No, you feed him water which was a cyanide solution diluted 100X diluted 200 times over.
Of course, it is just plain water at the end.
Some go to a worse place.
If they were really smart about it, they'd get a business license, become a security company, offer to test their security for a nominal fee, draw up a contract and get paid for it. Never mind awards or credits, they'd have money and something good to put on their resume.
Yeah why is information tresspass a felony (permanent loss of legal rights, etc) and normal tresspass (*) only a misdemeanor?
* Although in some states you can legally be shot to death by the owner in some cases.
Huh?
No, I'd say the actual loss is far worse. That is why theft insurance is so popular.
Making sure security fixes don't break anything is good - I agree - no excuse to not install it.
They should release an optional update that keeps one secure and gets back some performance even if it risks breakage.
So everyone is secure, and those that want some performance back can get it.
As for setuid and setgid, don't allow 2 processes on the core unless all of the uids/gids match.
Restrictive yes, but likely a good compromise.
I also like what someone else suggested: Only allow 2 processes to share a core if they are allowed to debug each other. That reuses security infrastructure quite nicely,
Buffalo, NY was involved in a terrorist plan.
o rist&btnG=Google+Search
And now the gov't is working with the University of Buffalo against terror. Ironic. Do those background checks throughly, Uncle Sam!
More info on Buffalo and terrorism here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=buffalo+terr
We don't have the anti-terror search engine yet, but Google turns up a lot.
Remapped sectors can make what used to be an efficient access pattern less so.
Having the OS know about the bad sectors and do its own remapping will allow head movement optimization routines in the OS to know the real situation - and thus bad sectors won't slow down access as much, since the OS knows where the drive will be seeking to and can thus minimize the amount of head travel needed.
Doesn't the FCC and Federal law override and prohibit homeowner's associations, etc from infringe on people's ability to receive signals?
Wasn't that decided in a lawsuit involving satellite dishes?
Their only solution is disabling Hyper Threading.
Heck, cutting the power eliminates all securiy holes too.
How about just not allow different UIDs on the core at the same time?
Processes aren't really expected to be safe from those of the same user (gdb can attach to them anyway, etc).
Without that condition, they could literally get sued anytime they made a change to their website (!) or decided to stop keeping it up.
You're not toe-ing the party line here!
;)
You really mean:
"Microsoft's monopoly power/software patents/SCO/Darl/Anti-open source zealots are precisely what's keeping Linux from being adopted by the masses."
They should ask the U.S. Department of State if unsure.
If still unsure, they should step away from the situation.
People's responsibility is to their own country first.
US Groups need to follow US laws and help US interests.
If people in other countries need help, primary responsbility lies with those in those countries.
If that country's gov't (or legitimate substitution thereof if the gov't is not legitimate) needs help, it should contact the U.S. Department of State.
Having humanitarian groups circumvent controls can aid terrorist interests, which can result in terrorist attacks against the US, including against civilian targets and using weapons of mass destruction.
Ah yes, section 805 and the EFF criticism of it.
/Hamas/Al Qaeda is right/wrong/etc"!), this is high-level targeted speech (e.g. "chemical X will work better in that bomb").
Please note, I am pro-freedom, anti-DMCA, etc. Yet, I must support section 805. Why? The EFF's own criticism shows why.
805 criminalizes "expert advice and assistance", considering it "material support of terrorism".
What does this mean?
"Material support" means significantly aiding the interests of an entity.
"Expert advice and assistance" means high level advice. This isn't political speech (e.g. "The IRA
"Expert advice and assistance", related to computers, would be something you'd pay for, such as having a consultant advise you, sending a question via email to a paid service,etc.
This can directly and significantly aid an entity.
The EFF criticizes restrictions on aiding terrorist groups with non-terrorist activities. Is this restriction bad? No. Why not? Because the non-terrorist activities aid the groups' image which helps them ultimately recruit members (such as future September 11 type hijackers, etc) and also, aiding them in those activities means they can spend less resources on them and reallocate those resources towards terrorist activities.
Section 805 is a needed weapon in the fight against terror. The First Amendment protects political and many other types of speech. Section 805 does not infringe it. The First Amendment doesn't protect one giving expert advice to terror groups. The First Amendment doesn't protect against breaking into a system - even if it is only done using computer commands (which can count as speech - a recent case said code is speech).
Section 805 just prevents you from aiding and abetting.
The Constitution prohibits treason ("aid and comfort to the enemy").
People and entities that want to harm or destroy the US are the enemy.
Let's concentrate on the cases where other parts of the USA PATRIOT act was abused in order to suppress non-terrorist activites and target people uninvolved in terror, and fight bad laws like the DMCA, NET act, etc.
Don't waste time and if you win, weaken our security by attacking section 805.
Section 209 -- Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant.
Why was this ever enacted? Doesn't current law allow it even without the USA PATRIOT act? Isn't anything allowed to be searched and seized with a warrant? And things in storage already have a lower protection under law than things in transit (anyone know why?).
Redundant law is a bad thing.
Want to add stability, a professional look and feel, extensibility, and a strong underlying core technology to GNOME?
It already exists. It is called KDE.
Doesn't very high magenetic fields kill superconductivity?
Still, it would keep them cool, even if they aren't superconducting.
That would be quite par for the course on Source Forge.
:)
They need to merge a lot of those projects and move the developers around.
Heck, can we get GNOME to merge into KDE?
If the quality of the dole-programmers' stuff is shit, X.org and KDE won't include it.
If they want their code to be included, I'd suggest going to GNOME in that case :)
Most open source projects are being damaged from lack of development. Most of sourceforge is dead projects.
;)
Most open source projects would benefit from any development, even bad development would attract attention - which would mean QA-ing and fixing the bad code and attracting good coders to the project. People ignore projects (on sourceforge and elsewhere) where nothing is happening. No one wants to be the only coder or one of a very few on a project apparently no one cares enough about to support or to recruit programmers for.
If an open source project is viable enough where new code could actually do more harm than good (i.e. it is viable enough to be harm-able) then it has enough safeguards against bad code harming the project that it isn't too big a concern. Bad code doesn't get into Linux (unless it is from one of the big names on the project - but that is the subject of another post - and I don't want a Flamebait mod on this one.