I think it could be a potentially more significant problem than your analysis indicates.
I admit it might.
they inherently degrade the security posture, for example why should most user desktops have a C compiler installed?
How does having GCC installed inherently degrade my security posture? Moreover, even if somehow having a C compiler could degrade one's security posture, GCC ships by default with Fedora (it did in 11, and I assume it does in 12 too) as it does for most full distros. If someone is knowledgeable (and paranoid) enough to remove it, he is presumable knowledgeable enough to change the no-password-to-install behavior.
For example there is no one "secure" configuration for a DNS resolver.
DNS resolver, as in the thing that makes the internet remotely usable? Again, if someone is willing to manually type in the ip addresses in his web browser, and knows how to remove the libraries that implement DNS resolution, I don't think disabling this behavior is going to be too hard for him.
Perhaps a more mundane but likely issue would simply be the case where the admin desires to keep the configuration of the machine overall, and what software is available, controlled to some greater or lesser degree.
At this point we are no longer talking about security. And I am somewhat sympathetic, but I really don't see this being a huge deal in the real world.
It just wasn't the best default policy apparently that FC12 ended up with, at least in the opinions of what appears to be a vast majority of anyone that actually noticed.
I realize most people think it was a bad choice, that is what I was wondering about in my first post. And I reiterate, am I missing something big, or did the people bashing the dev's not understand or not think through the issue. I am also completely sympathetic, btw, to those who complain that this should have been publicized, and possibly prompted for at install.
You read it right, if you participate in this lawsuit, the lawyers get perpetual exclusive access 90% of your xbox HDD capacity to build their own rival to Amazon S3.
the default packageKit no-password setup is a recipe for non-technical users to potentially blow their own left foot off. 99% of what one would like to guard against is simply accidental damage to the system. The other issue is once you have such a passwordless system in place someone will easily find a way to exploit it. . . . simply essentially making the default for everything "OK, do the dangerous thing" is not an answer!
I get the distinct impression you are misunderstanding the issue: They did not implement a passwordless system. All they did was make it so no password was required to install signed packages. Installing signed packages should never result in a user blowing his foot off, it should never be a "dangerous thing". The user still can't rm -rf./pile_o_cruft/.* and wipe out the whole file system without a password.
The only way this is a bad security issue (that I can think of) is if there is a multiuser system, and user other than the admin installs a trusted package that comes with insecure default configuration files. But if a trusted package comes with insecure defaults they already have a problem.
I'm actually surprised by the way everyone here agrees that the devs were wrong. I actually thought they had a fairly good point after reading one of their comments (fifth one down, Bill Nottingham, 12:23):
Out of the box, a desktop user has the ability to shut down the machine.
This gives them the ability, out of the box, to:
- DoS everyone on it
- get a root shell
-- install whatever they want
-- put viruses on
- hell, slap in a livecd or USB key and reinstall the box
Point being that Fedora is designed for desktop users, and because of this the default configuration already allows a non-privileged user to do far worse to the machine than install trusted software.
Using memory-mapped facilities to perform operations like addition...now THAT is cheating.
Isn't that what it does?
Strikes me that that is just complicating things, insofar as you still effectively have multiple instructions, there is just another semantic level tacked on to hide them.
So what you're saying is that people who are too fucking dumb to pick up on their conversational partners degree of emotional response via context need us to refrain from using certain four letter words in order to prevent them from becoming confused?
Well no. I don't think it has anything to do with people being confused, but it does have to do with people not being able to express themselves as clearly as they might like. And while context surely can convey a great deal of emotion, sometimes people may wish to express their emotion rather more directly.
Have you honestly never been in among a group of friends who habitually used 'fuck' to describe everything, and then in the one situation where you were truly boiling mad, you found that calling someone a "fucking asshole" no longer sufficiently conveyed your anger, precisely because everyone is habituated to it. So then you have to search for something yet more shocking, like 'cunt-rag' to express your anger. Contrast this to a situation where you are in company that never uses profane words (possibly a formal business setting), a setting where calling someone a bastard to his face, would make everyone's jaw drop, and make it very clear to everyone that you are mad enough to step over a very dark line.
There are people who consider those who use profanity to be less educated or less intelligent; they argue that the profane ones use such words in lieu of more 'proper' words because they do not know any 'higher' words.
Of course there is something to this too; calling someone a "fucker" really doesn't express much more than that you are angry with him, and wish to insult him. It isn't even a meaningful insult, in the sense that it doesn't make any factual claim about the person (at least not as most people use it, I know it does have a literal meaning). I'm not saying that people who use profanity are necessarily dumber or less educated than others, but that in some situations they are less articulate, and do a poorer job expressing a coherent thought than those who don't. So it isn't directly about intelligence or education (although they certainly may be factors), but it is about articulateness.
those who protest the use of profanity are less intelligent because their inability to cope with certain words impedes their communications with anyone who does not hold their own prejudices.
As I've tried to say, the people who overuse profanity inhibit their own communication. I have a hard time seeing how someone who disapproves of superfluous vulgarity is less able to communicate with the vulgar. After all it;s not as though they somehow don't know what the words mean, insofar as they mean anything. They, in fact, are the ones who keep the words meaning anything at all, because they are the ones who actually maintain it as a sort of taboo, with some true sock-value and real emotive power.
btw, If you go through my past posts you will see that I am not a prude about this sort of thing. But I do think there are limits, especially in the real world.
Why does any word mean anything? Because a linguistic society generally accepts that set of phonemes to have some significance or sign value. Some words the English-speaking world has come to agree upon as coarse, impolite, etc.
Yeah, in the end, it's arbitrary, but so is the fact that we capitalize 'I' or use 'and' to join ideas, or any other aspect of language. If we choose to ignore the arbitrary significance our language attaches to words, then we are in a sense attacking the meaningfulness and expressiveness of the language itself.
A little story I heard from a professor once. He was in Catholic high school (I'd guess around the 50's) and he and a bunch of the guys were at the lockers after football practice. The hall was empty (being after hours) and they were being loud and using 'fuck' quite freely. They were, thus, quite ashamed when one of the nuns, who had been correcting papers, came out of her classroom. The hall went silent and calmly she corrected them:
"That word, gentlemen, is called an intensifier. Intensifiers can be used to express extreme emotion. But if you use them too frequently, you will render yourselves impotent to express yourselves. For example, if I used them as liberally as you, you would have no idea how fucking mad I am right now."
Level 1, X11: handles the basics (writing to the graphics card, tracking the mouse, tracking key presses, tracking what programs are displaying windows and the dimensions and visibility of those windows etc.). X by itself is almost useless, thus:
Level 2, Window manager (WM): Also keeps track of windows and tells X what to do with them. It sets the policies about how windows gets focus (sloppy focus? click to focus?), how windows get moved and resized and closed, window decoration, universal keybindings, and other such sorts of things.
Some people like to continue to
Level 3, Desktop environment (DE): This is a window manager, plus a whole suite of more or less integrated programs that aim to give a full consistent GUI experience. So it will generally have things like a network manager, a music player, a picture viewer, a task-bar/dock/menu, a settings manager, etc.
Enlightenment is a WM, albeit a fairly feature rich one. Thus it does not replace, but requires X.
So are the bids the discount?
I'm assuming the bonds have a set face value, with a variable price (less than face value).
If the bids represent price, selling to the lowest bidder would seem to accomplish the opposite of the treasury's goal to raise money at low interest.
Come again?
I'm illogical and unable to hold my own in discussion because I bothered to apply the dictionary definition of the word we are discussing to the conversation?
You say my ID is ironic (it was always meant to be tongue-in-cheek, btw). Ironic is you saying I can't hold my own in a discussion that involves logic, as you continue to reply with some mixture of ad hominems, straw men, and non sequiturs and still neglect to address any of the points I've made.
You do realize that you fail to address either of my points?
I never said it wasn't a bribe because it wouldn't be accepted.
I never said it wasn't a bribe because it was done in the open.
Let's go back to the definition:
A price, reward, gift or favor bestowed or promised with a view to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct of a judge, witness or other person. A bribe is a consideration given or promised to a person, to induce him to decide a cause, give testimony, or perform some act contrary to what he knows to be truth, justice or rectitude.
My first point wasn't that such a deal would never be accepted; it was that because the company itself is being offered the money, there is no attempt to pervert the judgment of individuals and to get the company to act against its own interest (which BTW was also the force of the second point).
But by your logic, any proposed business deal that turns out to be bad for one of the parties is an attempted bribe.
So if company A offers to buy product X from company B for $1,000,000 and it turns out that product X would cost $1,750,000 to produce, by your reasoning that is an attempted bribe, and if company B through incompetence accepted the contract, then it would be a bribe simply.
But a bribe requires an attempt to "pervert judgment" or to get someone to act contrary to his obligations. Offering a business deal that turns out not to be favorable for one of the companies doesn't satisfy this, and it certainly doesn't satisfy this when the party offering the "bribe" needs the first party to remain in business for the deal to beneficial.
Great, so we agree that is is a bribe then, since those companies have an obligation to their shareholders, and taking Cuban's bribe would be acting contrary to the shareholders interest.
No.
If the million was being paid to the executives to act contrary to the company's interest then it would be a bribe. If for example Ballmer slipped Schmidt $1,000,000 to sink Google, it would be a bribe, just like if a boxer takes money to throw the fight. But that obviously isn't what is being proposed.
1) The money would be paid to the companies behind the websites, not the individual executives. Thus, if they accepted the money it would be because they believe it was in the best interest of the company, not for a quick buck at the expense of the company.
2) Likewise, it would not be the intention of the payer to sink the company, and neither would it be the payer's intent to get the executives to act against the interest of the company: the whole fucking point is to get exclusive indexing for the top 1000 sites, and indexing sites that are in bankruptcy doesn't afford a search engine a whole lot of competitive advantage, now does it?
It might be a dumb idea (I rather think it is) but it isn't a bribe.
Is anyone going to point out that this isn't bribery in any meaningful sense of the word? Paying someone to act a particular way is not a bribe, unless the guy being bribed has some moral or legal obligation to act contrary to the briber's interest. So do these websites have a moral or legal obligation to support or cooperate with Google? Oh yeah, and you're trolling.
Government debt is generally in the form of bonds. If I understand the system, the bonds generally have a face value, and they are sold at an auction to the highest bidder. Thus if the bidders lose confidence in the government's ability to repay, or if they lose confidence in the currency that the government will repay in (because the currency is predicted to undergo high inflation), the price on those bonds goes down = the government has to keep promising more for less in order to meet it's current expenses. If the investors lose enough confidence in the government's creditworthiness so the government just can't raise enough money from bonds, the government will have to either raise taxes through the roof to pay its running expenses, or it will have to resort to rampant money printing. Either way the economy goes to shit.
Almost says wikipedia:
1992 -- S.u.S.E. founded
1998 -- shortened to SuSE
2001 -- released SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
2003 -- changed the company name to SUSE (officially, no longer an acronym)
(later in) 2003 -- acquisition announced
Re:While I don't have any use for the program
on
Microsoft COFEE Leaked
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Most warrants are specific
Yes but IIRC, in the US, they can use any evidence, even of a crime other than what the warrant was initially for, if they found it while carrying out a legitimate search, while acting within the scope of the warrant. This happens with Terry stops all the time: The officer has a right to perform a limited search of a suspect (a pat down) to ensure he isn't armed, but in so doing finds a nickle bag, which he can keep as evidence, even though that wasn't what he was allowed to look for. I believe this goes back to the plain view doctrine. Car analogy: If they have a warrant to search your car for coke, and while searching, notice a bloody body in the trunk and a machete with your fingerprints and the victim's blood on it in the glove box, they can certainly charge you with murder, even though that's what the warrant was for. IANAL
No. From your own link's description of power in the US:
Buildings with more than two branch circuits will have both 120 and 240 V available.
If you would like more you can look up split phase.
Just one tasty morsel from it:
In countries whose standard phase to neutral voltage is 120 V, lighting and small appliances are connected between a live wire and the neutral. Large appliances, such as cooking equipment, space heating, water pumps, clothes dryers, and air conditioners are connected across the two live conductors and operate at 240 V, requiring less current and smaller conductors than would be needed if the appliances were designed for 120 V operation.
Residential houses are typilly wired using "normal 220/110 wiring" where there are two 110V live wires (180 degrees in phase with each other) and they share a common neutral wire. Normal electrical outlets are wires between one 110V live wire and the common neutral wire. Some high current loads (air conditioning etc.) are wired between two phase wires so they get full 220V voltage.
In other words, you're wrong, but don't let that stop you from pontificating about due diligence and so forth.
The article also alleges that our (US) mains are only 110V, but in fact, IIRC, we typically have a 220V main (two 110's 180 degrees off) which can be run together to get 220V.
Okay let's go with this:
There is a purely physical me, that we can call the body, that engages in behavior. These behaviors are purely deterministic, based on genetic/chemical/electronic factors that can't be controled.
Then there is a conscious me. Whatever it is, let's call it the mind. The mind is unable to directly influence the acts of the body. So the conscious mind is just sort of along for the ride, passively observing, feeling, thinking and so forth. So why does the mind feel guilt for bad things the body has done? The mind was, after all, powerless to change the bad behaviors of the body. Even from a purely evolutionary standpoint it doesn't make sense, because subjecting the mind to psychological suffering, can't correct the behavior of the body, since after all there is no free choice and the mind can't influence the behavior of the determined body.
What makes you think no other animals fear retribution or punishment?
Never said they didn't. In fact I think they do, the point is that such fear is different from a sense of guilt.
What makes you think other primates don't feel guilt?
Let me be more particular: I don't mean the purely emotional sense of feeling bad that something happened that you accidentally helped bring about (which most people would agree is misplaced guilt), I mean the sensation that follows upon knowing you did something wrong or unjust. My point was that this second sort of guilt (the kind you ought to feel) is not the same as fear of retribution: I've felt guilty for things I already got away with, I've still felt guilty for things I'd already been punished for, and I've been afraid of punishment or retribution for things I felt no guilt for having done. This sense of guilt is entirely based on the perception of personal fault which is in turn based on the perception of free choice: I knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. It has no (direct) connection to fear of punishment, as the person I was replying to had suggested. As to whether other primates feel this sort of sensation, I would be interested to see evidence that they do. As it is I don't really know what goes through a monkey's mind when he steals a banana from another. The implication of the original post seemed to me to be that animals do not control their behavior in a free way, and neither do men. I was replying to what I perceived to be the conclusion of the argument that had been made. Feel free to challenge the other assumptions of that post if you like but it wasn't my point.
Arguably.
knowing != causing.
You may be able to predict what your friend will do in a given situation but it doesn't mean you made him do it, nor does it imply that he was less free in choosing that course.
Of course in traditional Christian theology, God doesn't just predict (sees a cause and assumes the effect will follow) since this would fall back into the problem of determinism (if God foreknows by looking at causes, then if God knows what you will do with certainty, you must be determined to do it). Rather theologians (I believe it was Boethius that famously developed this explanation) use the notion of eternity as a constant present: God experiences and sees the past, present, and future as His present. Thus there is no knowing ahead of time, there is just knowing. So just as your knowing what your friend did last week doesn't take away the freedom of that choice, so neither does God's knowing what you will do tomorrow. At the end though, in all the difficulty of the discussion, the key is always the assertion that knowing is not the same as causing.
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals.
This is inconsistent with my experience of guilt (which, I would add, is very different from my experience of fear of retribution and punishment). To anyone who might get angry at me for asserting this, ask whether your anger at me is consistent with your belief that I had no control over typing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Once upon a time I knew these details. I'd never heard of the Inflation Protected Securities though.
I think it could be a potentially more significant problem than your analysis indicates.
I admit it might.
they inherently degrade the security posture, for example why should most user desktops have a C compiler installed?
How does having GCC installed inherently degrade my security posture? Moreover, even if somehow having a C compiler could degrade one's security posture, GCC ships by default with Fedora (it did in 11, and I assume it does in 12 too) as it does for most full distros. If someone is knowledgeable (and paranoid) enough to remove it, he is presumable knowledgeable enough to change the no-password-to-install behavior.
For example there is no one "secure" configuration for a DNS resolver.
DNS resolver, as in the thing that makes the internet remotely usable? Again, if someone is willing to manually type in the ip addresses in his web browser, and knows how to remove the libraries that implement DNS resolution, I don't think disabling this behavior is going to be too hard for him.
Perhaps a more mundane but likely issue would simply be the case where the admin desires to keep the configuration of the machine overall, and what software is available, controlled to some greater or lesser degree.
At this point we are no longer talking about security. And I am somewhat sympathetic, but I really don't see this being a huge deal in the real world.
It just wasn't the best default policy apparently that FC12 ended up with, at least in the opinions of what appears to be a vast majority of anyone that actually noticed.
I realize most people think it was a bad choice, that is what I was wondering about in my first post. And I reiterate, am I missing something big, or did the people bashing the dev's not understand or not think through the issue.
I am also completely sympathetic, btw, to those who complain that this should have been publicized, and possibly prompted for at install.
You read it right, if you participate in this lawsuit, the lawyers get perpetual exclusive access 90% of your xbox HDD capacity to build their own rival to Amazon S3.
the default packageKit no-password setup is a recipe for non-technical users to potentially blow their own left foot off. 99% of what one would like to guard against is simply accidental damage to the system. The other issue is once you have such a passwordless system in place someone will easily find a way to exploit it. . . . simply essentially making the default for everything "OK, do the dangerous thing" is not an answer!
I get the distinct impression you are misunderstanding the issue: They did not implement a passwordless system. All they did was make it so no password was required to install signed packages. Installing signed packages should never result in a user blowing his foot off, it should never be a "dangerous thing". The user still can't rm -rf ./pile_o_cruft/.* and wipe out the whole file system without a password.
The only way this is a bad security issue (that I can think of) is if there is a multiuser system, and user other than the admin installs a trusted package that comes with insecure default configuration files. But if a trusted package comes with insecure defaults they already have a problem.
I actually thought they had a fairly good point after reading one of their comments (fifth one down, Bill Nottingham, 12:23):
Out of the box, a desktop user has the ability to shut down the machine.
This gives them the ability, out of the box, to:
- DoS everyone on it
- get a root shell
-- install whatever they want
-- put viruses on
- hell, slap in a livecd or USB key and reinstall the box
Point being that Fedora is designed for desktop users, and because of this the default configuration already allows a non-privileged user to do far worse to the machine than install trusted software.
Using memory-mapped facilities to perform operations like addition...now THAT is cheating.
Isn't that what it does?
Strikes me that that is just complicating things, insofar as you still effectively have multiple instructions, there is just another semantic level tacked on to hide them.
So what you're saying is that people who are too fucking dumb to pick up on their conversational partners degree of emotional response via context need us to refrain from using certain four letter words in order to prevent them from becoming confused?
Well no. I don't think it has anything to do with people being confused, but it does have to do with people not being able to express themselves as clearly as they might like. And while context surely can convey a great deal of emotion, sometimes people may wish to express their emotion rather more directly.
Have you honestly never been in among a group of friends who habitually used 'fuck' to describe everything, and then in the one situation where you were truly boiling mad, you found that calling someone a "fucking asshole" no longer sufficiently conveyed your anger, precisely because everyone is habituated to it. So then you have to search for something yet more shocking, like 'cunt-rag' to express your anger. Contrast this to a situation where you are in company that never uses profane words (possibly a formal business setting), a setting where calling someone a bastard to his face, would make everyone's jaw drop, and make it very clear to everyone that you are mad enough to step over a very dark line.
There are people who consider those who use profanity to be less educated or less intelligent; they argue that the profane ones use such words in lieu of more 'proper' words because they do not know any 'higher' words.
Of course there is something to this too; calling someone a "fucker" really doesn't express much more than that you are angry with him, and wish to insult him. It isn't even a meaningful insult, in the sense that it doesn't make any factual claim about the person (at least not as most people use it, I know it does have a literal meaning). I'm not saying that people who use profanity are necessarily dumber or less educated than others, but that in some situations they are less articulate, and do a poorer job expressing a coherent thought than those who don't. So it isn't directly about intelligence or education (although they certainly may be factors), but it is about articulateness.
those who protest the use of profanity are less intelligent because their inability to cope with certain words impedes their communications with anyone who does not hold their own prejudices.
As I've tried to say, the people who overuse profanity inhibit their own communication. I have a hard time seeing how someone who disapproves of superfluous vulgarity is less able to communicate with the vulgar. After all it;s not as though they somehow don't know what the words mean, insofar as they mean anything. They, in fact, are the ones who keep the words meaning anything at all, because they are the ones who actually maintain it as a sort of taboo, with some true sock-value and real emotive power.
btw, If you go through my past posts you will see that I am not a prude about this sort of thing. But I do think there are limits, especially in the real world.
Why does any word mean anything? Because a linguistic society generally accepts that set of phonemes to have some significance or sign value. Some words the English-speaking world has come to agree upon as coarse, impolite, etc.
Yeah, in the end, it's arbitrary, but so is the fact that we capitalize 'I' or use 'and' to join ideas, or any other aspect of language. If we choose to ignore the arbitrary significance our language attaches to words, then we are in a sense attacking the meaningfulness and expressiveness of the language itself.
A little story I heard from a professor once. He was in Catholic high school (I'd guess around the 50's) and he and a bunch of the guys were at the lockers after football practice. The hall was empty (being after hours) and they were being loud and using 'fuck' quite freely. They were, thus, quite ashamed when one of the nuns, who had been correcting papers, came out of her classroom. The hall went silent and calmly she corrected them:
"That word, gentlemen, is called an intensifier. Intensifiers can be used to express extreme emotion. But if you use them too frequently, you will render yourselves impotent to express yourselves. For example, if I used them as liberally as you, you would have no idea how fucking mad I am right now."
Level 1, X11: handles the basics (writing to the graphics card, tracking the mouse, tracking key presses, tracking what programs are displaying windows and the dimensions and visibility of those windows etc.). X by itself is almost useless, thus:
Level 2, Window manager (WM): Also keeps track of windows and tells X what to do with them. It sets the policies about how windows gets focus (sloppy focus? click to focus?), how windows get moved and resized and closed, window decoration, universal keybindings, and other such sorts of things.
Some people like to continue to
Level 3, Desktop environment (DE): This is a window manager, plus a whole suite of more or less integrated programs that aim to give a full consistent GUI experience. So it will generally have things like a network manager, a music player, a picture viewer, a task-bar/dock/menu, a settings manager, etc.
Enlightenment is a WM, albeit a fairly feature rich one. Thus it does not replace, but requires X.
So are the bids the discount?
I'm assuming the bonds have a set face value, with a variable price (less than face value).
If the bids represent price, selling to the lowest bidder would seem to accomplish the opposite of the treasury's goal to raise money at low interest.
Come again?
I'm illogical and unable to hold my own in discussion because I bothered to apply the dictionary definition of the word we are discussing to the conversation?
You say my ID is ironic (it was always meant to be tongue-in-cheek, btw). Ironic is you saying I can't hold my own in a discussion that involves logic, as you continue to reply with some mixture of ad hominems, straw men, and non sequiturs and still neglect to address any of the points I've made.
I never said it wasn't a bribe because it wouldn't be accepted.
I never said it wasn't a bribe because it was done in the open.
Let's go back to the definition:
A price, reward, gift or favor bestowed or promised with a view to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct of a judge, witness or other person. A bribe is a consideration given or promised to a person, to induce him to decide a cause, give testimony, or perform some act contrary to what he knows to be truth, justice or rectitude.
My first point wasn't that such a deal would never be accepted; it was that because the company itself is being offered the money, there is no attempt to pervert the judgment of individuals and to get the company to act against its own interest (which BTW was also the force of the second point).
But by your logic, any proposed business deal that turns out to be bad for one of the parties is an attempted bribe.
So if company A offers to buy product X from company B for $1,000,000 and it turns out that product X would cost $1,750,000 to produce, by your reasoning that is an attempted bribe, and if company B through incompetence accepted the contract, then it would be a bribe simply.
But a bribe requires an attempt to "pervert judgment" or to get someone to act contrary to his obligations. Offering a business deal that turns out not to be favorable for one of the companies doesn't satisfy this, and it certainly doesn't satisfy this when the party offering the "bribe" needs the first party to remain in business for the deal to beneficial.
Great, so we agree that is is a bribe then, since those companies have an obligation to their shareholders, and taking Cuban's bribe would be acting contrary to the shareholders interest.
No.
If the million was being paid to the executives to act contrary to the company's interest then it would be a bribe. If for example Ballmer slipped Schmidt $1,000,000 to sink Google, it would be a bribe, just like if a boxer takes money to throw the fight. But that obviously isn't what is being proposed.
1) The money would be paid to the companies behind the websites, not the individual executives. Thus, if they accepted the money it would be because they believe it was in the best interest of the company, not for a quick buck at the expense of the company.
2) Likewise, it would not be the intention of the payer to sink the company, and neither would it be the payer's intent to get the executives to act against the interest of the company: the whole fucking point is to get exclusive indexing for the top 1000 sites, and indexing sites that are in bankruptcy doesn't afford a search engine a whole lot of competitive advantage, now does it?
It might be a dumb idea (I rather think it is) but it isn't a bribe.
Thanks for the clarification.
You're a moron.
Is anyone going to point out that this isn't bribery in any meaningful sense of the word?
Paying someone to act a particular way is not a bribe, unless the guy being bribed has some moral or legal obligation to act contrary to the briber's interest.
So do these websites have a moral or legal obligation to support or cooperate with Google?
Oh yeah, and you're trolling.
Government debt is generally in the form of bonds.
If I understand the system, the bonds generally have a face value, and they are sold at an auction to the highest bidder. Thus if the bidders lose confidence in the government's ability to repay, or if they lose confidence in the currency that the government will repay in (because the currency is predicted to undergo high inflation), the price on those bonds goes down = the government has to keep promising more for less in order to meet it's current expenses.
If the investors lose enough confidence in the government's creditworthiness so the government just can't raise enough money from bonds, the government will have to either raise taxes through the roof to pay its running expenses, or it will have to resort to rampant money printing.
Either way the economy goes to shit.
no, too barren: l'enfer, c'est les autres
Almost says wikipedia:
1992 -- S.u.S.E. founded
1998 -- shortened to SuSE
2001 -- released SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
2003 -- changed the company name to SUSE (officially, no longer an acronym)
(later in) 2003 -- acquisition announced
. . . that's not what the warrant was for.
FTFM
Most warrants are specific
Yes but IIRC, in the US, they can use any evidence, even of a crime other than what the warrant was initially for, if they found it while carrying out a legitimate search, while acting within the scope of the warrant.
This happens with Terry stops all the time: The officer has a right to perform a limited search of a suspect (a pat down) to ensure he isn't armed, but in so doing finds a nickle bag, which he can keep as evidence, even though that wasn't what he was allowed to look for.
I believe this goes back to the plain view doctrine.
Car analogy: If they have a warrant to search your car for coke, and while searching, notice a bloody body in the trunk and a machete with your fingerprints and the victim's blood on it in the glove box, they can certainly charge you with murder, even though that's what the warrant was for.
IANAL
Buildings with more than two branch circuits will have both 120 and 240 V available.
If you would like more you can look up split phase. Just one tasty morsel from it:
In countries whose standard phase to neutral voltage is 120 V, lighting and small appliances are connected between a live wire and the neutral. Large appliances, such as cooking equipment, space heating, water pumps, clothes dryers, and air conditioners are connected across the two live conductors and operate at 240 V, requiring less current and smaller conductors than would be needed if the appliances were designed for 120 V operation.
Ah here is another random page I got off google:
Residential houses are typilly wired using "normal 220/110 wiring" where there are two 110V live wires (180 degrees in phase with each other) and they share a common neutral wire. Normal electrical outlets are wires between one 110V live wire and the common neutral wire. Some high current loads (air conditioning etc.) are wired between two phase wires so they get full 220V voltage.
In other words, you're wrong, but don't let that stop you from pontificating about due diligence and so forth.
The article also alleges that our (US) mains are only 110V, but in fact, IIRC, we typically have a 220V main (two 110's 180 degrees off) which can be run together to get 220V.
Okay let's go with this:
There is a purely physical me, that we can call the body, that engages in behavior. These behaviors are purely deterministic, based on genetic/chemical/electronic factors that can't be controled.
Then there is a conscious me. Whatever it is, let's call it the mind. The mind is unable to directly influence the acts of the body.
So the conscious mind is just sort of along for the ride, passively observing, feeling, thinking and so forth.
So why does the mind feel guilt for bad things the body has done? The mind was, after all, powerless to change the bad behaviors of the body.
Even from a purely evolutionary standpoint it doesn't make sense, because subjecting the mind to psychological suffering, can't correct the behavior of the body, since after all there is no free choice and the mind can't influence the behavior of the determined body.
What makes you think no other animals fear retribution or punishment?
Never said they didn't. In fact I think they do, the point is that such fear is different from a sense of guilt.
What makes you think other primates don't feel guilt?
Let me be more particular: I don't mean the purely emotional sense of feeling bad that something happened that you accidentally helped bring about (which most people would agree is misplaced guilt), I mean the sensation that follows upon knowing you did something wrong or unjust.
My point was that this second sort of guilt (the kind you ought to feel) is not the same as fear of retribution: I've felt guilty for things I already got away with, I've still felt guilty for things I'd already been punished for, and I've been afraid of punishment or retribution for things I felt no guilt for having done.
This sense of guilt is entirely based on the perception of personal fault which is in turn based on the perception of free choice: I knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. It has no (direct) connection to fear of punishment, as the person I was replying to had suggested.
As to whether other primates feel this sort of sensation, I would be interested to see evidence that they do. As it is I don't really know what goes through a monkey's mind when he steals a banana from another. The implication of the original post seemed to me to be that animals do not control their behavior in a free way, and neither do men. I was replying to what I perceived to be the conclusion of the argument that had been made. Feel free to challenge the other assumptions of that post if you like but it wasn't my point.
Arguably.
knowing != causing.
You may be able to predict what your friend will do in a given situation but it doesn't mean you made him do it, nor does it imply that he was less free in choosing that course.
Of course in traditional Christian theology, God doesn't just predict (sees a cause and assumes the effect will follow) since this would fall back into the problem of determinism (if God foreknows by looking at causes, then if God knows what you will do with certainty, you must be determined to do it). Rather theologians (I believe it was Boethius that famously developed this explanation) use the notion of eternity as a constant present: God experiences and sees the past, present, and future as His present. Thus there is no knowing ahead of time, there is just knowing. So just as your knowing what your friend did last week doesn't take away the freedom of that choice, so neither does God's knowing what you will do tomorrow.
At the end though, in all the difficulty of the discussion, the key is always the assertion that knowing is not the same as causing.
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals.
This is inconsistent with my experience of guilt (which, I would add, is very different from my experience of fear of retribution and punishment).
To anyone who might get angry at me for asserting this, ask whether your anger at me is consistent with your belief that I had no control over typing it.