> Actually, I doubt that the "strings" command is reverse-engineering. But I didn't break into anything, the code was distributed.
So if the code was distributed??? What is the problem????? First you complain that they distribute in object form, then you say they distribute the source. Make up your mind.
Actually, I know that the other problem is that they distributed it with proprietary code, which everyone else here seems to have forgotten, nevertheless your self-contradiction doesn't look good... especially to the morons on here.
Not to be rude, but... SO WHAT? The point was not that the U.S. has it so bad because we can be drafted, but the discrepancy between adulthood as measured for everything else, and adulthood as measured for buying alcohol. I bet you can drink in that military service you speak of can't you? I bet you can even drink ONBOARD ships in that military service, unlike U.S. ships, that are completely dry. The U.S.'s idiotic fear and regulation of alcohol use is probably one of the reasons why the U.S. has the HIGHEST rate of alcoholism in the world. i.e. The forbidden fruit syndrome.
You, my dear AC, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I served in the military from the time I was 19 until now(I am 25). When I entered the military in 95, there was one base (count it ONE) where 18 year olds could buy beer (but not ALL alcoholic products). This base was in San Diego, and the reason for the leniency was to prevent young sailors from heading down to TJ to do their drinking, and getting into trouble that could be prevented on base. Less than a year later, even that base changed the rules. Currently no U.S. Sailor under the age of 21 is allowed to drink any alcoholic beverage of any type on U.S. soil with one exception noted below. In Louisianna, anyone who is 18 can drink beer, but you must be 21 to drink hard liquor. When in a foreign port, servicemen are allowed to drink according to the laws of that country, and in almost every country but the U.S. 18 year olds can drink, BUT...
In the majority of the US, the very people who have volunteered(or been drafted) to (possibly) give their lives for their country, can't even buy a simple beer.
This is wrong! Either the age for military service (and voting) should be raised to 21, or the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Period.
Not only that but you can be put in to forced labor (the draft)because you are an adult, at 18... are old enough to decide the fate of your country (vote)because you are an adult, at 18... Are no longer allowed to have sex with your 1 year younger girlfriend (statutory rape) because you are now an adult, at 18... but you can't have a simple beer 'til you are 21.
If your life and financial well being were in the intrests of the community in general, a judge would ensure that they were maintained. Unfortunately, it is important for the well being of the community in general (not absolutely necessary, but important), that Trans Union stay in existence, while it is not important for the well being of the community that you stay in existence (no matter how important it is to you), therefore, Trans Union gets a tongue lashing and the threat of future fines, but you get the death penalty etc. Is it clearer now?
Correct, and... Bob's Auto cannot even get the info on your credit report unless you are trying to get financing from them and/or give them permission. Therefore, Bob's Auto is not capable of obtaining the detailed data on enough people to make their list worth buying. (at least in theory) And to truly answer the question, nothing is preventing Bob's Auto from selling the information they do gather, and many retailers do sell such information. That's why you should check for some type of option on any form you fill out letting you deny the sale of that info. If it's not on there, don't provide the info. It WOULD be nice if they couldn't sell that info either... Why don't you petition your congressman or senator to have such legislation enacted?
Ah, but it DIDN'T read "why not save os disk space by automatically detecting and storing duplicate files as links" Instead it read "...were brainstorming technology advances when an idea occurred to them -- why not save operating system disk space by storing duplicate files as links"
The point is that while the final implementation may have added on to the symbolic link concept, the initial idea, for which they do attempt to take credit, was simply the already existing symbolic link.
Problem is, it's painful for those on the receiving end of the stupid remark, rather than those on the giving end.
>I think the idea was not criminalization of l0phtcrack, but that once the guy was caught, the police charged him up the yin-yang with everything they >could think of.
I think(tm) the idea the prosecutor had doesn't really matter. The point is that he is charged with possision of burglary equipment, and that the implication from that is that the software in question is burglary equipment and therefore illegal. The issue is the same as with lockpicks (see thread above). They are illegal, regardless of use except to a licensed locksmith. I can't wait until I have to get a "license" to program, or test security on my own system etc.
I also think(tm) that it doesn't matter what we may think about the validity of the law. The law has existed for ages, is broadly enough defined that the software can easily be classified as falling under it(as could almost anything you can own), and therefore it is a valid charge and will probably set the precedent that we most definately don't want.
Finally I think(tm) that these creeps deserve whatever they get, it's just to bad that in getting it, they're also setting an unjust precedent.
First, let me say that I am not a libertarian. With that understood, where do you get the idea that anything you quoted is dangerous to your personal safety? The libertarian party is advocating the "right" to provide an inferior product or service, and the right to purchase an inferior product or service, but not the right to advertise said inferior product or service as more than what it is. Hence you merely now have the choice to endanger yourself if you wish to. How can that be a bad thing?
Actually, I am now going to have to take a closer look at the libertarian party.
I can only pity you for your inability to percieve and understand the concepts of sarcasm and humor. Let me respond to your questions in order. >If it is a not an attack to a particular country, then why 'Blame Canada' at the first place? While sometimes it may not seem like it, South Park is set in the "Real World." Therefore it would be ludicrous to use an imaginary country in this context. However as you apparently failed to read in my original post, they could just have easily used any country name instead of Canada and been just as effective in getting there message accross, as well as just as humorous. Canada or Mexico were the obvious choices because they are neighbors to the U.S. and as such are obvious targets for the idiocys of the fictional adults. >With only lyrics as a mean of communication, how can YOU be so sure what's behind the song writer's hideous mind? BECAUSE the lyrics make it clear to anyone with half a brain or more. Listen to the last line of the song. Or read it in the above post. Look at the overall context of the song, and the voices within it. Grow a little bit thicker skin and actually examine the evidence before pronouncing judgement. >Did the song tell you the writer does not mean to attack the country? I must admin you are right on this one. Perhaps he meant both to make sarcastic fun of those who choose to find a boogie man instead of taking responsibility and working towards solutions AND attack Canada.... I doubt it, but maybe. >If it does, then does it tell you why choose Canada? As I said before, the song works just as well with any US Neighbor. Why in the world would you expect the song to tell you why Canada was arbitrarily chosen? Perhaps you would like lyrics that say: Who are we going to blame? We've got to find a stooge. Let's play the country game. And put some names in a hat. The one we pull out is the one that we'll blame. Well! It's Canada today though they're really all the same. >You give the writer too much credit for something the writer simply does not deserve. Actually I just gave you too much credit for believing that you would be able to comprehend my post if you couldn't comprehend the song. >If the writer is screwed because it is incapable of deliver message correctly and unimbiguously, then it is the person's fault. If the listener is screwed up because he or she is incapable of comprehending the message correctly simply because it is not delivered plainly, it is the listener's fault. ~I don't know why I bother... You'll never figure it out -- Me.
While I totally respect your right to take offence, I also must tell you that you completely missed the entire point of the song. You apparently are unable to recognize sarcasm when you see it, and as such should not be watching a show as full as sarcasm as South Park (And I'm betting you don't and actually pulled this comment out of your a$$ without even examining the lyrics.) The last line redeems the entire song as far as your objections go, showing that the song is actually making fun of people who will blame anything or anyone rather than take responsability for what is in truth at least partially their own fault. The fact of the matter is that they could have substituted any country name for Canada, and the song would have been almost as effective. It wouldn't have been quite as effective because of course Canada is to blame for everything. (Author's Note: for those too ignorant to pick up on it, that was sarcasm and humor, not an actual attack against the country named) I kinda hope they just change the country name in the revised song, and make it Blame America. THAT would be funny, especially when we get to see the response from all the Americans and Canadians who didn't get it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
> Actually, I doubt that the "strings" command is reverse-engineering. But I didn't break into anything, the code was distributed.
So if the code was distributed??? What is the problem????? First you complain that they distribute in object form, then you say they distribute the source. Make up your mind.
Actually, I know that the other problem is that they distributed it with proprietary code, which everyone else here seems to have forgotten, nevertheless your self-contradiction doesn't look good... especially to the morons on here.
Not to be rude, but... SO WHAT?
The point was not that the U.S. has it so bad because we can be drafted, but the discrepancy between adulthood as measured for everything else, and adulthood as measured for buying alcohol.
I bet you can drink in that military service you speak of can't you? I bet you can even drink ONBOARD ships in that military service, unlike U.S. ships, that are completely dry.
The U.S.'s idiotic fear and regulation of alcohol use is probably one of the reasons why the U.S. has the HIGHEST rate of alcoholism in the world. i.e. The forbidden fruit syndrome.
You, my dear AC, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I served in the military from the time I was 19 until now(I am 25). When I entered the military in 95, there was one base (count it ONE) where 18 year olds could buy beer (but not ALL alcoholic products). This base was in San Diego, and the reason for the leniency was to prevent young sailors from heading down to TJ to do their drinking, and getting into trouble that could be prevented on base. Less than a year later, even that base changed the rules. Currently no U.S. Sailor under the age of 21 is allowed to drink any alcoholic beverage of any type on U.S. soil with one exception noted below.
In Louisianna, anyone who is 18 can drink beer, but you must be 21 to drink hard liquor.
When in a foreign port, servicemen are allowed to drink according to the laws of that country, and in almost every country but the U.S. 18 year olds can drink, BUT...
In the majority of the US, the very people who have volunteered(or been drafted) to (possibly) give their lives for their country, can't even buy a simple beer.
This is wrong! Either the age for military service (and voting) should be raised to 21, or the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Period.
Not only that but you can be put in to forced labor (the draft)because you are an adult, at 18...
are old enough to decide the fate of your country (vote)because you are an adult, at 18...
Are no longer allowed to have sex with your 1 year younger girlfriend (statutory rape) because you are now an adult, at 18...
but you can't have a simple beer 'til you are 21.
If your life and financial well being were in the intrests of the community in general, a judge would ensure that they were maintained.
Unfortunately, it is important for the well being of the community in general (not absolutely necessary, but important), that Trans Union stay in existence, while it is not important for the well being of the community that you stay in existence (no matter how important it is to you), therefore, Trans Union gets a tongue lashing and the threat of future fines, but you get the death penalty etc.
Is it clearer now?
Correct, and...
Bob's Auto cannot even get the info on your credit report unless you are trying to get financing from them and/or give them permission.
Therefore, Bob's Auto is not capable of obtaining the detailed data on enough people to make their list worth buying. (at least in theory)
And to truly answer the question, nothing is preventing Bob's Auto from selling the information they do gather, and many retailers do sell such information. That's why you should check for some type of option on any form you fill out letting you deny the sale of that info. If it's not on there, don't provide the info. It WOULD be nice if they couldn't sell that info either... Why don't you petition your congressman or senator to have such legislation enacted?
No wonder the Solaris servers I work with are such shit! Mark above post up informative.
Thank you for making this point. I get so irritated with MVS (which I haven't every used before but like immensely). Thank You, Thank You, Thank you.
Ah, but it DIDN'T read "why not save os disk space by automatically detecting and storing duplicate files as links"
Instead it read "...were brainstorming technology advances when an idea occurred to them -- why not save operating system disk space by storing duplicate files as links"
The point is that while the final implementation may have added on to the symbolic link concept, the initial idea, for which they do attempt to take credit, was simply the already existing symbolic link.
>I think the idea was not criminalization of l0phtcrack, but that once the guy was caught, the police charged him up the yin-yang with everything they
>could think of.
I think(tm) the idea the prosecutor had doesn't really matter. The point is that he is charged with possision of burglary equipment, and that the implication from that is that the software in question is burglary equipment and therefore illegal. The issue is the same as with lockpicks (see thread above). They are illegal, regardless of use except to a licensed locksmith. I can't wait until I have to get a "license" to program, or test security on my own system etc.
I also think(tm) that it doesn't matter what we may think about the validity of the law. The law has existed for ages, is broadly enough defined that the software can easily be classified as falling under it(as could almost anything you can own), and therefore it is a valid charge and will probably set the precedent that we most definately don't want.
Finally I think(tm) that these creeps deserve whatever they get, it's just to bad that in getting it, they're also setting an unjust precedent.
First, let me say that I am not a libertarian. With that understood, where do you get the idea that anything you quoted is dangerous to your personal safety? The libertarian party is advocating the "right" to provide an inferior product or service, and the right to purchase an inferior product or service, but not the right to advertise said inferior product or service as more than what it is. Hence you merely now have the choice to endanger yourself if you wish to. How can that be a bad thing?
Actually, I am now going to have to take a closer look at the libertarian party.
Harder to see IS harder to hit, even if the bounding boxes are the same size. Quit quibbling already
I can only pity you for your inability to percieve and understand the concepts of sarcasm and humor. Let me respond to your questions in order. >If it is a not an attack to a particular country, then why 'Blame Canada' at the first place? While sometimes it may not seem like it, South Park is set in the "Real World." Therefore it would be ludicrous to use an imaginary country in this context. However as you apparently failed to read in my original post, they could just have easily used any country name instead of Canada and been just as effective in getting there message accross, as well as just as humorous. Canada or Mexico were the obvious choices because they are neighbors to the U.S. and as such are obvious targets for the idiocys of the fictional adults. >With only lyrics as a mean of communication, how can YOU be so sure what's behind the song writer's hideous mind? BECAUSE the lyrics make it clear to anyone with half a brain or more. Listen to the last line of the song. Or read it in the above post. Look at the overall context of the song, and the voices within it. Grow a little bit thicker skin and actually examine the evidence before pronouncing judgement. >Did the song tell you the writer does not mean to attack the country? I must admin you are right on this one. Perhaps he meant both to make sarcastic fun of those who choose to find a boogie man instead of taking responsibility and working towards solutions AND attack Canada.... I doubt it, but maybe. >If it does, then does it tell you why choose Canada? As I said before, the song works just as well with any US Neighbor. Why in the world would you expect the song to tell you why Canada was arbitrarily chosen? Perhaps you would like lyrics that say: Who are we going to blame? We've got to find a stooge. Let's play the country game. And put some names in a hat. The one we pull out is the one that we'll blame. Well! It's Canada today though they're really all the same. >You give the writer too much credit for something the writer simply does not deserve. Actually I just gave you too much credit for believing that you would be able to comprehend my post if you couldn't comprehend the song. >If the writer is screwed because it is incapable of deliver message correctly and unimbiguously, then it is the person's fault. If the listener is screwed up because he or she is incapable of comprehending the message correctly simply because it is not delivered plainly, it is the listener's fault. ~I don't know why I bother... You'll never figure it out -- Me.
While I totally respect your right to take offence, I also must tell you that you completely missed the entire point of the song. You apparently are unable to recognize sarcasm when you see it, and as such should not be watching a show as full as sarcasm as South Park (And I'm betting you don't and actually pulled this comment out of your a$$ without even examining the lyrics.) The last line redeems the entire song as far as your objections go, showing that the song is actually making fun of people who will blame anything or anyone rather than take responsability for what is in truth at least partially their own fault. The fact of the matter is that they could have substituted any country name for Canada, and the song would have been almost as effective. It wouldn't have been quite as effective because of course Canada is to blame for everything. (Author's Note: for those too ignorant to pick up on it, that was sarcasm and humor, not an actual attack against the country named) I kinda hope they just change the country name in the revised song, and make it Blame America. THAT would be funny, especially when we get to see the response from all the Americans and Canadians who didn't get it in the first place.