'Absolute ownership (and rulership) by one person or party' is a very accurate description of communism. The only difference between the communists and the other non-communist fascists in this is that the communists say that it is collective ownership. The reality of the rule, however, is identical.
You need to read a history book. A good course on political science would not hurt either. In such a state, it is no wonder you are confised, especially re Bush. Fascists declare Communists as traditional enemies, and Fascism has zero to do with the government owning business.
As I stated before, this was not the case in Nazi Germany, where Hitler rewarded German businesses who had supported the Party by letting them do whatever they liked. It did not hurt that many of them received free labour. Perhaps you are confused by the US businesses which were in fact seized as enemy property, much as German businesses in the US were seized. Surely you are not suggesting that FDR was a fascist/communist/something else nasty we will think up later as seems fashionable among Republicans these days? It is not surprising as many Republicans received money from Hitler and opposed FDR and the war at the time.
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were all dictators in totalitarian regimes. Leninism, Stalinism, and Fascism all share a common social conservatism and totalitarian control. However, they are diametrically opposed when it comes to financial matters. Nazi Germany and all other fascist states were capitalist in nature, abhored communists and communism, and allowed individuals to own property, businesses, etc. These are things that did not/ could not occur in the USSR.
This is like blaming MS for the exploit that allowed slammer to spread; if people patched their systems when they were supposed to, they wouldn't have been inconvenienced. OTOH, MS should have caught the bug ahead of time.
No, it is not. The full statement is "x remote root exploits in the default install in y years." In order for X to be incremented, an exploit has to be available for the currently shipping version of OpenBSD. This supposedly happened once and it was updated. If this exploit were affecting the currently shipping OpenBSD, and were a remote root exploit, it would be fair to update it.
It is possible that the sshd on OpenBSD 3.3, being version 2.6, is exploitable, but if it were no one has proven it. No one has come up with a root exploit based on this ssh flaw either, on ANY platform. It is likely that this flaw is fixed on OpenBSD3.3 but I would update just the same.
Nevertheless, until this flaw yields a remote root exploit and is proven to work on sshd as run on OpenBSD 3.3 Theo would be correct in not changing the statement. After all why lie?
Yes, but the question was; Is it deserved? Or it is "Common Knowledge" which means nothing?
OpenBSD is used SO LITTLE that it mainly stays under the radar. Little exploits come and go and no one notices.
Anyone that claims their software is "secure" just hasn't had their software looked at hard wnough.
Prehaps. But consider the act that security is their greatest feature, and out-of-the-box security is a design goal from the beginning. IMHO this shoudl be the case with all software, no matter how trivial. But the simple fact is that it is not. In fact, bad coding techniques are taught in universities and reinforced on the job. I can't name a single other product that is given the kind of security auditing OpenBSD undergoes. Can you?
I would say there is a difference between a "Linux App" and an app the runs on Linux. That being that the former is inteded to "brand" that app with Linux with the hope of associating the apps success or failures with Linux. The later, perhaps, not banking on that association.
By that definition, MySQL would qualify as a LInux app. After all it is what Slashdot uses, eh?
[flame]No, actually, according to Stallman's stated position, we're supposed to all work for tips as waiters and give software away. It's not clear if even charging for support is permissible in the FSF's thinking, since that would involve putting money and software in the same context, something that apparently must never be done...[/flame]
No, that is not Stallman's stated position, it is SCO's stated beliefe of Stallman's position. Stallman's stated position is that it is okay to charge for software, and in fact he gets paid to write software. What he wants people to do is share the code so everyone's software is better. That sounds good to me. Software Libre!
You're about as usefull as a screen door on a battle ship!
Submarine. Oh, you were trying to be funny! But you can't be funny on slashdot because some pedantic geek will think you are serious and come kill the joke! Funny gets you no karma, either. Try being Informative next time.:)
This was my initial reaction as well. Sun will have to define "employees" as users of the product or in some broad fashion to avoid this possibility.. On the other side of the coin "employees" would also include personel that would never touch a computer (janitorial staff etc...), so maybe Sun knows what it is doing....
RTFA. They said:
The company's new pricing model for its systems will be based on a company's employee count, as declared in a company's annual filings with government regulators.
So employees would be defined as whatever they are defined as for purposes of SEC filings and such. This is a bad idea for many reasons; a very simplistic plan that someone clearly has not thought through.
The company's new pricing model for its systems will be based on a company's employee count, as declared in a company's annual filings with government regulators.
Great. Yet another reason for companies to lay people off. Thank you, Sun, for making it ever more attractive to be a Solaris administrator.:(
I realize that its popular to pick on the Republicans at the moment, but this sort of redisticting happens every few years (I forget how many at the moment, and am to lazy to look it up for a/. post) Which ever set of aristocrats are in power at the time use this redistricting to help themselves (gee, suprise). This is a normal function of our federal govenment. Is it right, and/or benificial to us pesants? Probaly not, but please don't pretend its new, or one sided. Move along nothing to see here...
Obviously you are not up on what has been going on here in Texas. The redistricting is supposed happen every few years, yes. It happened in 2000. Except no one could agree on how, and it ended up that every year since then a new redistricting plan has been proposed completely on partisan lines. Meanwhile Texas, which has been in the red , has not had a budget approved in awhile. Recently the Republicans tried to put the Democrats in jail for not voting the way they wanted them to, and have been using the FBI and OHS to chase them about. Still we see no budget, despite many special legislative sessions for the redistricting. Oh and some business about restricting gay rights. Yes, very important business.
Riiiiight. whatever. So Saddam Hussein planned 9/11, but Ossama bin Laden planned 9/11, and Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the US, except he destroyed them, but he didn't destroy them, and his documentation is not documentation, and if torturing prisoners is evil we don't know what is, but torturing prisoners is right, and the prisoners in guantanimo bay are not prisoners of war but they are combatants and we don't have to folow international law but of course we always follow the law. Hmmm. Tax cuts weren't for the rich but the top 1% get bigger tax cuts. Then we have the part where all the votes were counted recounted and counted again but each time they were counted they must by law stop counting yet your vote counts for Bush.
Either every one of the above contradictory statements is absolutely true or Bush is a goddamn liar. Sounds like a liar to me. face it, if his lips are moving he is lying. He is a better liar than Clinton, to be sue, but just as much a liar.
As for your ridiculous idea of what fascism is, consider that in Nazi Germany the businesses were given complete free reign by the government to do as they pleased because they funded the Party. Fascism has nothing to do with the government owning business, that would be communism which is the enemy of fascists.
No other President (Clinton included) had to have the SC decide what was correct. Only Rutherford B. Hayes had a similarly disputed election. That's the one where the 8 Republicans in the committee gave Hayes the disputed 20 electoral college votes letting him win with 185 to Tilden's 184.
Yes, and the selection of Hayes over Tilden almost resulted in a civil war. The selection of Bush resulted in ineffectual complaining. *sigh*
I just hope that we actually count the votes in the next election...
You don't compete by being a better wage slave. You compete by breaking out of wage slavery and becoming an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurs need capital though, generally, and they aren't going to be getting it from VCs in thsi climate:P.
Besides, people don't magically become inventive because they lost their job (though soem people are pushed that way). Usually if a person was entrepreneurial in the first place, and/or had the capital, they would not have been a wage slave in the first place. So a wage slave with no job (especially one living from paycheck to paycheck) is a very poor choice of an entrepreneur.
IT and other high-tech folks didn't have any problems introducing hardware and software to displace blue-collar workers, also with familites and mortgages. Now they bitch and complain when the tables are turned on them.
They also had no problems introducing blue collar workers to the hardware and software so that
a) they get to still have a job
b) they get paid better now
c) they have more control over their destiny
This, however, is very different. I would not have a problem with all menial tasks and jobs being taken by robots so long as the people doing those thinsg now get to do the job of telling the robots what to do. I do have a problem when even the job of telling the robots/computers what to do gets outsourced to some other country, however.
WalMart has $5 DVDs. Though on the net there are several Columbia House type deals where you can get like 10 DVDs for a penny (or something) and then promise and swear to buy more at a discounted rate.
you know what the funniest part of the whole underpants gnomes thing was? They were making fun of OPEN SOURCE at the time...
1. give away for free
2. ??????
3. Profit!...sound familiar?
The underpants gnomes were not giving anything away. They stole underpants! Only a SCO lawyer would see an indictmnet of Open Source in a story about stealing other people's property and making a profit off of it.:P
"The coolest thing is no one ever changed the passwords on these accounts."
Because the NYT deletes these accounts as soon as they figure out they're being used by multiple users.
That is news to me. Are you sure about that? I have been using the same slashdot-provided username and password for nyt articles for years.
"Honestly, i do not know why submitters do not just link to the archive version of the nytimes story, whcih never requires a login to see."
Because those URLs are notoriously unreliable; sometimes the archive URL works and sometimes it doesn't.
That is understandable, but of course using this would mean slashdotters would have to actually check the links used in story submissions (a process during which slashdotters have been notoriously unreliable).:)
As well as evidence of how fad-driven the IT industry is. There is still no magic bullet but vendors -- and no less the press -- continue to drum up every new toy as if it were The One.
Sad that people who spend years on an MBA degree that presumably includes a course on Spotting The Obvious 101 can't, well, spot the obvious.
Whatr struck me as ridiculous about all this is that the companies outsourcing, atthe end of the day, stand to save 0-20% after significant investments and planning. But the same companies could have save 40% in many cases by going with Open Source products, and untold millions by improving their IT planning (mostly by having some) and implementing security procedures (which would have reduced the man-hours spent fixing things later) but they refused to do it.
I don't get it. When up front investments are needed to make things better and more profitable for a company, or when changes in planning would mean cost savings, the suits refuse. But if they can spend billions to get rid of US jobs and not even save money fo rthe company (definitely not upfront, and possibly not ever) they are chomping at the bit. What is there a Johnny Cochran clone selling this idea to them?
Actually, one of the keys to understanding what is happening is slippd into the article almost as an afterthought. The CEO of Tata Consulting sits on the board of several companies that have decidd to outsource. And Tata and companies like it are the real benefactors of this whole plan. Coincidence? I think not. Who knows how many other executives who work for outsource consulting firms are on the board of companies who have chosen to outsource? I think we found our Johnny Cochran.
This is, of course another example of why this sort of thing should not be allowed. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to allow people who work for one company to be on the board of other companies, or people to be on the board of multiple companies, but it has led to many high-profile disasters. Notice the many pies board members of Enron had their fingers in (for instance the CEO of Compaq was on Enron's board of directors). And here we have another example of board members lining their pockets at the expense of employees all around. All from this sad practice.
IANAMBA, but perhaps someone with more of a business background can explain a reason beyond simple human greediness that anyone should be on more than one board? And how can they possibly be doing a good job for each of these companies? I know that as a grunt worker I have always been required not to work for anyone else while working at the job I have. That goes for everyone from the lowliest fry guy at McDonald's to the white collar workers (in fact it is more important the higher you go up the food chain). Why is it different for these people? Are they royalty or something? Interesting they have multiple jobs an dtheir multiple jobs seem to consist of reducing other people's jobs....
Ttha si easeucb ti aws not luryt donmra. Gnipiwph up a ucikq oapgrrm ot replpyor nmdiozear tghsin eaksm ti os cumh reom aeuderbnal. Ti osal saieintcd soeoenm wya oto nolg ot teiwr het etranp stpo airzmgnnodi is hcum arhder yb danh.
Obviously you did not understand the original poster. S/he specifically specified that the first and last letters in the word have to still be there for the word to be easy to read.
Slashdot Mirror
or maybe you should take some tips from your friend on running queries
Nah, just spelling. If you had misspelt things as badly as the poster the results would have been "baried" [sic] for you, too. :)
'Absolute ownership (and rulership) by one person or party' is a very accurate description of communism. The only difference between the communists and the other non-communist fascists in this is that the communists say that it is collective ownership. The reality of the rule, however, is identical.
You need to read a history book. A good course on political science would not hurt either. In such a state, it is no wonder you are confised, especially re Bush. Fascists declare Communists as traditional enemies, and Fascism has zero to do with the government owning business.
As I stated before, this was not the case in Nazi Germany, where Hitler rewarded German businesses who had supported the Party by letting them do whatever they liked. It did not hurt that many of them received free labour. Perhaps you are confused by the US businesses which were in fact seized as enemy property, much as German businesses in the US were seized. Surely you are not suggesting that FDR was a fascist/communist/something else nasty we will think up later as seems fashionable among Republicans these days? It is not surprising as many Republicans received money from Hitler and opposed FDR and the war at the time.
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were all dictators in totalitarian regimes. Leninism, Stalinism, and Fascism all share a common social conservatism and totalitarian control. However, they are diametrically opposed when it comes to financial matters. Nazi Germany and all other fascist states were capitalist in nature, abhored communists and communism, and allowed individuals to own property, businesses, etc. These are things that did not/ could not occur in the USSR.
This is like blaming MS for the exploit that allowed slammer to spread; if people patched their systems when they were supposed to, they wouldn't have been inconvenienced. OTOH, MS should have caught the bug ahead of time.
No, it is not. The full statement is "x remote root exploits in the default install in y years." In order for X to be incremented, an exploit has to be available for the currently shipping version of OpenBSD. This supposedly happened once and it was updated. If this exploit were affecting the currently shipping OpenBSD, and were a remote root exploit, it would be fair to update it.
It is possible that the sshd on OpenBSD 3.3, being version 2.6, is exploitable, but if it were no one has proven it. No one has come up with a root exploit based on this ssh flaw either, on ANY platform. It is likely that this flaw is fixed on OpenBSD3.3 but I would update just the same.
Nevertheless, until this flaw yields a remote root exploit and is proven to work on sshd as run on OpenBSD 3.3 Theo would be correct in not changing the statement. After all why lie?
Yes, but the question was; Is it deserved? Or it is "Common Knowledge" which means nothing?
OpenBSD is used SO LITTLE that it mainly stays under the radar. Little exploits come and go and no one notices.
Anyone that claims their software is "secure" just hasn't had their software looked at hard wnough.
Prehaps. But consider the act that security is their greatest feature, and out-of-the-box security is a design goal from the beginning. IMHO this shoudl be the case with all software, no matter how trivial. But the simple fact is that it is not. In fact, bad coding techniques are taught in universities and reinforced on the job. I can't name a single other product that is given the kind of security auditing OpenBSD undergoes. Can you?
I would say there is a difference between a "Linux App" and an app the runs on Linux. That being that the former is inteded to "brand" that app with Linux with the hope of associating the apps success or failures with Linux. The later, perhaps, not banking on that association.
By that definition, MySQL would qualify as a LInux app. After all it is what Slashdot uses, eh?
[flame]No, actually, according to Stallman's stated position, we're supposed to all work for tips as waiters and give software away. It's not clear if even charging for support is permissible in the FSF's thinking, since that would involve putting money and software in the same context, something that apparently must never be done...[/flame]
No, that is not Stallman's stated position, it is SCO's stated beliefe of Stallman's position. Stallman's stated position is that it is okay to charge for software, and in fact he gets paid to write software. What he wants people to do is share the code so everyone's software is better. That sounds good to me. Software Libre!
You're about as usefull as a screen door on a battle ship!
Submarine. Oh, you were trying to be funny! But you can't be funny on slashdot because some pedantic geek will think you are serious and come kill the joke! Funny gets you no karma, either. Try being Informative next time. :)
This was my initial reaction as well. Sun will have to define "employees" as users of the product or in some broad fashion to avoid this possibility.. On the other side of the coin "employees" would also include personel that would never touch a computer (janitorial staff etc...), so maybe Sun knows what it is doing....
RTFA. They said:
The company's new pricing model for its systems will be based on a company's employee count, as declared in a company's annual filings with government regulators.
So employees would be defined as whatever they are defined as for purposes of SEC filings and such. This is a bad idea for many reasons; a very simplistic plan that someone clearly has not thought through.
The company's new pricing model for its systems will be based on a company's employee count, as declared in a company's annual filings with government regulators.
Great. Yet another reason for companies to lay people off. Thank you, Sun, for making it ever more attractive to be a Solaris administrator. :(
I seem to recall some actual Sun documentation even referring to these devices by these names.
As does the Linux kernel documentation. :)
I realize that its popular to pick on the Republicans at the moment, but this sort of redisticting happens every few years (I forget how many at the moment, and am to lazy to look it up for a /. post) Which ever set of aristocrats are in power at the time use this redistricting to help themselves (gee, suprise). This is a normal function of our federal govenment. Is it right, and/or benificial to us pesants? Probaly not, but please don't pretend its new, or one sided.
Move along nothing to see here...
Obviously you are not up on what has been going on here in Texas. The redistricting is supposed happen every few years, yes. It happened in 2000. Except no one could agree on how, and it ended up that every year since then a new redistricting plan has been proposed completely on partisan lines. Meanwhile Texas, which has been in the red , has not had a budget approved in awhile. Recently the Republicans tried to put the Democrats in jail for not voting the way they wanted them to, and have been using the FBI and OHS to chase them about. Still we see no budget, despite many special legislative sessions for the redistricting. Oh and some business about restricting gay rights. Yes, very important business.
The question is: would Diebold be just too damn idiotic and incompetent to even notice shennanigans like that (95% probability)
Well, idiotic and incompetent would be the Republicans' main constituency....
I think you mean "older and wealthier"
"Quick, rich, and angry. Like a Republican!"
--B.J. Smith, GTA:VC
Yet, Bush has yet to lie.
Riiiiight. whatever. So Saddam Hussein planned 9/11, but Ossama bin Laden planned 9/11, and Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the US, except he destroyed them, but he didn't destroy them, and his documentation is not documentation, and if torturing prisoners is evil we don't know what is, but torturing prisoners is right, and the prisoners in guantanimo bay are not prisoners of war but they are combatants and we don't have to folow international law but of course we always follow the law. Hmmm. Tax cuts weren't for the rich but the top 1% get bigger tax cuts. Then we have the part where all the votes were counted recounted and counted again but each time they were counted they must by law stop counting yet your vote counts for Bush.
Either every one of the above contradictory statements is absolutely true or Bush is a goddamn liar. Sounds like a liar to me. face it, if his lips are moving he is lying. He is a better liar than Clinton, to be sue, but just as much a liar.
As for your ridiculous idea of what fascism is, consider that in Nazi Germany the businesses were given complete free reign by the government to do as they pleased because they funded the Party. Fascism has nothing to do with the government owning business, that would be communism which is the enemy of fascists.
Actually the code is not public domain, but it has been released under the BSD license by SCO.
No other President (Clinton included) had to have the SC decide what was correct. Only Rutherford B. Hayes had a similarly disputed election. That's the one where the 8 Republicans in the committee gave Hayes the disputed 20 electoral college votes letting him win with 185 to Tilden's 184.
Yes, and the selection of Hayes over Tilden almost resulted in a civil war. The selection of Bush resulted in ineffectual complaining. *sigh*
I just hope that we actually count the votes in the next election...
Watch. It will go down to ignominious defeat in the House, because there are fewer RINOs there.
Er, who are the RINOs?
You don't compete by being a better wage slave.
You compete by breaking out of wage slavery and
becoming an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurs need capital though, generally, and they aren't going to be getting it from VCs in thsi climate :P.
Besides, people don't magically become inventive because they lost their job (though soem people are pushed that way). Usually if a person was entrepreneurial in the first place, and/or had the capital, they would not have been a wage slave in the first place. So a wage slave with no job (especially one living from paycheck to paycheck) is a very poor choice of an entrepreneur.
IT and other high-tech folks didn't have any problems introducing hardware and software to displace blue-collar workers, also with familites and mortgages. Now they bitch and complain when the tables are turned on them.
They also had no problems introducing blue collar workers to the hardware and software so that
a) they get to still have a job
b) they get paid better now
c) they have more control over their destiny
This, however, is very different. I would not have a problem with all menial tasks and jobs being taken by robots so long as the people doing those thinsg now get to do the job of telling the robots what to do. I do have a problem when even the job of telling the robots/computers what to do gets outsourced to some other country, however.
Where are you getting $5 DVDs?
WalMart has $5 DVDs. Though on the net there are several Columbia House type deals where you can get like 10 DVDs for a penny (or something) and then promise and swear to buy more at a discounted rate.
you know what the funniest part of the whole underpants gnomes thing was? They were making fun of OPEN SOURCE at the time...
1. give away for free
2. ??????
3. Profit! ...sound familiar?
The underpants gnomes were not giving anything away. They stole underpants! Only a SCO lawyer would see an indictmnet of Open Source in a story about stealing other people's property and making a profit off of it. :P
"The coolest thing is no one ever changed the passwords on these accounts."
Because the NYT deletes these accounts as soon as they figure out they're being used by multiple users.
That is news to me. Are you sure about that? I have been using the same slashdot-provided username and password for nyt articles for years.
"Honestly, i do not know why submitters do not just link to the archive version of the nytimes story, whcih never requires a login to see."
Because those URLs are notoriously unreliable; sometimes the archive URL works and sometimes it doesn't.
That is understandable, but of course using this would mean slashdotters would have to actually check the links used in story submissions (a process during which slashdotters have been notoriously unreliable). :)
As well as evidence of how fad-driven the IT industry is. There is still no magic bullet but vendors -- and no less the press -- continue to drum up every new toy as if it were The One.
Sad that people who spend years on an MBA degree that presumably includes a course on Spotting The Obvious 101 can't, well, spot the obvious.
Whatr struck me as ridiculous about all this is that the companies outsourcing, atthe end of the day, stand to save 0-20% after significant investments and planning. But the same companies could have save 40% in many cases by going with Open Source products, and untold millions by improving their IT planning (mostly by having some) and implementing security procedures (which would have reduced the man-hours spent fixing things later) but they refused to do it.
I don't get it. When up front investments are needed to make things better and more profitable for a company, or when changes in planning would mean cost savings, the suits refuse. But if they can spend billions to get rid of US jobs and not even save money fo rthe company (definitely not upfront, and possibly not ever) they are chomping at the bit. What is there a Johnny Cochran clone selling this idea to them?
Actually, one of the keys to understanding what is happening is slippd into the article almost as an afterthought. The CEO of Tata Consulting sits on the board of several companies that have decidd to outsource. And Tata and companies like it are the real benefactors of this whole plan. Coincidence? I think not. Who knows how many other executives who work for outsource consulting firms are on the board of companies who have chosen to outsource? I think we found our Johnny Cochran.
This is, of course another example of why this sort of thing should not be allowed. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to allow people who work for one company to be on the board of other companies, or people to be on the board of multiple companies, but it has led to many high-profile disasters. Notice the many pies board members of Enron had their fingers in (for instance the CEO of Compaq was on Enron's board of directors). And here we have another example of board members lining their pockets at the expense of employees all around. All from this sad practice.
IANAMBA, but perhaps someone with more of a business background can explain a reason beyond simple human greediness that anyone should be on more than one board? And how can they possibly be doing a good job for each of these companies? I know that as a grunt worker I have always been required not to work for anyone else while working at the job I have. That goes for everyone from the lowliest fry guy at McDonald's to the white collar workers (in fact it is more important the higher you go up the food chain). Why is it different for these people? Are they royalty or something? Interesting they have multiple jobs an dtheir multiple jobs seem to consist of reducing other people's jobs....
I thought everyone knew Microsoft Chicken Shit Engineer or MCSE but I don't follow MS enough to know all the other TLAs.
It might help to start by understanding that TLAs have three letters. :)
Ttha si easeucb ti aws not luryt donmra.
Gnipiwph up a ucikq oapgrrm ot replpyor nmdiozear tghsin eaksm ti os cumh reom aeuderbnal. Ti osal saieintcd soeoenm wya oto nolg ot teiwr het etranp stpo airzmgnnodi is hcum arhder yb danh.
Obviously you did not understand the original poster. S/he specifically specified that the first and last letters in the word have to still be there for the word to be easy to read.