No one wants to blame themselves, and everyone rushes to tell the other children "It's not your fault, they were bad kids." Well, I think they should be told that If they were one of the kids that teased them or made fun of them, this is partly their fault. The other children contributed to it as much if not more than any other influence. You should be careful about how you handle another person's emotions, you have no idea what you're doing to them inside, or what they're capable of.
Exactly.... as Heinlein says... an armed society is a POLITE society. If these kids (the survivors and victims alike) had maybe stopped to consider the way they were treating their fellow human beings, the tragedy might have been completely avoided.
We all tend to forget how tenuous our own lives are. We place them in everyone else's hands every day. You go to work at an office - are there letter openers at your office? Did you just really piss off the guy in the cube next to you through your rudeness, hurting his feelings, etc. Your life now depends on his ability to NOT pick up his letter opener and jam it into your thorax like he envisioned briefly.
Sadly, I would say the blame is equally divided between the two kids with guns and the hundreds of others who relentlessly tormented them.
Banning guns is not the answer.
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
The American government generally controls through propoganda, not force. When they do resort to force, they have much larger guns than you will ever have, and more skilled people using them.
Funny, I bet the British said the same thing in the 18th century... right before a band of poorly equipped rebels kicked their collective arses back where they came from.
England...England.. ah yes,... the country where two charming little boys kidnapped and killed another little kid, right? Too bad they weren't smart enough to notice the surveillance camera taping them.
When people want to kill, they're going to do it. People are out there who are sick. Lack of weaponry isn't going to change that. Laws regarding that weaponry won't change it.
... that all the big corporations -- with all the stockholder controlling interests that come with them --- are being allowed to invest in RH, and capitalize on the growth of RH and Linux. Great! Except that the people who really MADE RH have a product - the kernel hackers, the average joes, cannot purchase stock. In fact RH has stated on the SVLUG (Silicon Valley LUG) that it has no intention in the foreseeable future of going public.
Many Linux hackers and supporters are also in a position to invest a decent amount in RH. These are the people who deserve the most to profit from the rise of Linux, not Dell who up until LWCE couldn't give a crap about Linux. Dell is in it for the money, nothing more nothing less. The people who are in it for the love are left outside waiting for the door to open while the corporations get richer.
RH should be publicly held, so that ANYONE can share the proceeds of the growth of Linux, and not just companies that don't care about it, but only care about the profit.
Am I the only one who is getting REALLY annoyed by the fact that companies that could give a damn about Linux are going to be able to invest and cash in on RH and Linux's success, while the programmers -- the average Joe -- cannot buy stock/equity in RH?
If RH was publicly traded, that would be one thing, but as it stands now the people who made the movement happen, the ones who put RH where they are, cannot similarly invest and buy stock in RH.
Ummmm, hello! You're probably the same kinda guy who would sue a gun manufacturer if someone you knew shot themselves!
The cause of your problem is retarded users, not virus authors. If there were no virii, your idiot users would still cause problems, they just wouldn't be easily found by VirusScan...
But its NOT the right thing to do. GNU (GNU's Not Unix) is an Operating System in and of itself -- an operating system that until Hurd is finished is not yet complete.
Saying "GNU/Linux" is like saying "Unix/MacOSX" because some of the features of Unix were incorporated into OSX. Its just dumb.
But again, if RMS/FSF had WANTED that level of control over their creation - so that they could prevent that type of thing from happening - why did they spend so much time developing the GPL which explicitly ALLOWED that activity?
You see, the FSF and RMS want to have it both ways. They want control of their creation and its offspring (Linux) and to still have "freedom". Uh-uh. The two are mutually exclusive.
If they had wanted that ability to control it after they put it on the FTP server, they should have worded the license differently. Instead, they released it to the world, for all and sundry to do with it as they will --- and they did.
At the same time, there are a few people from the NANOG mailing list, myself included, who are trying to work up a "secure whois" RFC, one which would allow people to search the whois database, but either (a) after authenticating, so that whois-db-harvesters can be stopped, or (b) providing limited information for a select quantity of requests per day if the request is unauthenticated.
Any open solution should also be prepared to incorporate that as well, since that is the "shield" that NSI hides behind these days, is protecting themselves from the harvesters, domain-squatters, etc.
You're right, FSF intended GNU to be a free Unix equivalent.
Unfortunately, FSF failed. GNU, the operating system, never came to be. Sad, but true, and the sooner FSF realizes it, the happier they'll be.
Now if Linus had said, "HEY, let me donate this to the FSF GNU project", that would be one thing. Then FSF would have a case that the "package" is GNU/Linux. Actually, they would have a case for saying that the package is "GNU"(period).
But that's not what Linus did.
Now, if FSF wants to release their own distribution, they can call it GNU/Linux if they want to. Heck they can call it "Rabid Penguins Eat Wild GNUs/Linux". In fact, they can take the Red Hat Linux distribution, change the name and rerelease it if they so desire.
Just as there is no logical reason to require Linux distributions to call themselves "GNU/Linux", there is nothing to stop FSF from taking an existing RH distribution, renaming it to their liking, and releasing it through their own channels. FSF could simply say "Hey, we like this Linux kernel!" and incorporate it into the GNU project, the same way the Linux developers took the tools FSF was developing for GNU and said "Hey, we like these unix-like tools!" and incorporated them into the Linux OS.
FREEDOM is what it is all about, as Stallman would say. There's no reason why the FREE software carries with it the burden of naming conventions. If the Linux community is forced to call itself the GNU/Linux community because it uses the GNU tools, then the tools weren't free in the first place.
FSF is NOT the originator of the GNU/Linux project!
Well, that's not entirely correct. They're the ones who came up with the NAME "GNU/Linux".
Linus Torvalds came up with Linux, with the help of a team of hackers who like the kernel. Period.
He found some free tools from FSF that could be made to run under the Linux kernel. Seeing as they were free for the taking and using, he did so.
Now the FSF crowd has seen that by letting people do whatever they wanted with their code, they lose control of their code, and it can get assimilated into bigger projects. Tough. That's what freedom's all about.
That's not to say the FSF didn't do a kickass job. They did, but the reasons they're complaining - wanting recognition for their work, etc. etc., are the very reasons why software companies choose to control their code, so that they have the ability to say "You can use it, IF..."
Just as an FYI, if someone REALLY wanted to get NSA.ORG from you, they'd point out to InterNIC/NSI that you're in violation of the user agreement by only having a single DNS server, and that they should drop the domain.
Something you might want to consider. I know they USED to enforce that way "back in the day", but I don't know about nowadays...
It looks like there are two entries for the book @ Amazon. I found the more "reasonably" priced version by doing a title search. I suspect that the "ludicrously overpriced" one is either a data entry error, or a signed-edition that isn't marked as such.
This is typical ZDNet crap. Can we have a ZDnet category made up so that all ZD stories, regardless of what they're about, can go in that category, so they can be summarily ignored?:)
I'm confused... what part of USWorst runs on Linux? I know it isn't their Internet side, because that's all FreeBSD?
Maybe a better answer to that would be "Companies who are contributing to the growth of Linux", which would still include like Applix, Corel, etc., but would not have us looking at every single company in the world that runs Linux somewhere. Let the growth of the "index" be tied to the success of the promoters...
Gimme a break. I like BeOS, but the bottom line is that Sanscrit has more people using it, and silly things like this is the reason for that.
I do care that they're not being forthcoming, but the bottom line is that the "affected population" for this problem is so frighteningly narrow as to approach nonexistence.
Come on,... its like you could go to a stationary store, buy a box of stationary, personally apologize to every BeOS user and still have half a box left.:)
(very special thanks to Sam Kinison for that line)
Yeah, let's go back to the trees... no wait the trees were a bad idea too, let's go back to the oceans.
Most of the research NASA needs to do these days needs to be done in space, hence the need for the station. PLUS it will allow us to better explore the solar system, and be our first step into a much larger world.
People like you just don't get it, and probably never will.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.... as Heinlein says... an armed society is a POLITE society. If these kids (the survivors and victims alike) had maybe stopped to consider the way they were treating their fellow human beings, the tragedy might have been completely avoided.
We all tend to forget how tenuous our own lives are. We place them in everyone else's hands every day. You go to work at an office - are there letter openers at your office? Did you just really piss off the guy in the cube next to you through your rudeness, hurting his feelings, etc. Your life now depends on his ability to NOT pick up his letter opener and jam it into your thorax like he envisioned briefly.
Sadly, I would say the blame is equally divided between the two kids with guns and the hundreds of others who relentlessly tormented them.
Funny, I bet the British said the same thing in the 18th century... right before a band of poorly equipped rebels kicked their collective arses back where they came from.
England...England.. ah yes,... the country where
two charming little boys kidnapped and killed another little kid, right? Too bad they weren't
smart enough to notice the surveillance camera
taping them.
When people want to kill, they're going to do it. People are out there who are sick. Lack of weaponry isn't going to change that. Laws regarding that weaponry won't change it.
... that all the big corporations -- with all the stockholder controlling interests that come with them --- are being allowed to invest in RH, and capitalize on the growth of RH and Linux. Great! Except that the people who really MADE RH have a product - the kernel hackers, the average joes, cannot purchase stock. In fact RH has stated on the SVLUG (Silicon Valley LUG) that it has no intention in the foreseeable future of going public.
Many Linux hackers and supporters are also in a position to invest a decent amount in RH. These are the people who deserve the most to profit from the rise of Linux, not Dell who up until LWCE couldn't give a crap about Linux. Dell is in it for the money, nothing more nothing less. The people who are in it for the love are left outside waiting for the door to open while the corporations get richer.
RH should be publicly held, so that ANYONE can share the proceeds of the growth of Linux, and not just companies that don't care about it, but only care about the profit.
You're in Fremont? :) So am I ? Maybe I'll see ya there. :)
Dredd (dredd@megacity.org)
FYI - Red Robin is a real chain of restaurants. I ate at one the other night in the San Fran bay area. :)
Am I the only one who is getting REALLY annoyed by the fact that companies that could give a damn about Linux are going to be able to invest and cash in on RH and Linux's success, while the programmers -- the average Joe -- cannot buy stock/equity in RH?
If RH was publicly traded, that would be one thing, but as it stands now the people who made the movement happen, the ones who put RH where they are, cannot similarly invest and buy stock in RH.
Why is that?
Ummmm, hello! You're probably the same kinda guy who would sue a gun manufacturer if someone you knew shot themselves!
The cause of your problem is retarded users, not virus authors. If there were no virii, your idiot users would still cause problems, they just wouldn't be easily found by VirusScan...
But its NOT the right thing to do. GNU (GNU's Not Unix) is an Operating System in and of itself -- an operating system that until Hurd is finished is not yet complete.
Saying "GNU/Linux" is like saying "Unix/MacOSX" because some of the features of Unix were incorporated into OSX. Its just dumb.
BIND doesn't use WHOIS at all.
Whois is, put simply, a protocol for querying a server to get CONTACT information about a given query-string (domain, address space, whatever).
Drop me an e-mail if you want to get involved. dredd@megacity.org
But again, if RMS/FSF had WANTED that level of control over their creation - so that they could prevent that type of thing from happening - why did they spend so much time developing the GPL which explicitly ALLOWED that activity?
You see, the FSF and RMS want to have it both ways. They want control of their creation and its offspring (Linux) and to still have "freedom". Uh-uh. The two are mutually exclusive.
If they had wanted that ability to control it after they put it on the FTP server, they should have worded the license differently. Instead, they released it to the world, for all and sundry to do with it as they will --- and they did.
At the same time, there are a few people from the NANOG mailing list, myself included, who are trying to work up a "secure whois" RFC, one which would allow people to search the whois database, but either (a) after authenticating, so that whois-db-harvesters can be stopped, or (b) providing limited information for a select quantity of requests per day if the request is unauthenticated.
Any open solution should also be prepared to incorporate that as well, since that is the "shield" that NSI hides behind these days, is protecting themselves from the harvesters, domain-squatters, etc.
Great to hear that FSF actually has Hurd "ready to go" as it were.
Doesn't mean that Linux has to give them space in their name.
You're right, FSF intended GNU to be a free Unix equivalent.
Unfortunately, FSF failed. GNU, the operating system, never came to be. Sad, but true, and the sooner FSF realizes it, the happier they'll be.
Now if Linus had said, "HEY, let me donate this to the FSF GNU project", that would be one thing. Then FSF would have a case that the "package" is GNU/Linux. Actually, they would have a case for saying that the package is "GNU"(period).
But that's not what Linus did.
Now, if FSF wants to release their own distribution, they can call it GNU/Linux if they want to. Heck they can call it "Rabid Penguins Eat Wild GNUs/Linux". In fact, they can take the Red Hat Linux distribution, change the name and rerelease it if they so desire.
Just as there is no logical reason to require Linux distributions to call themselves "GNU/Linux", there is nothing to stop FSF from taking an existing RH distribution, renaming it to their liking, and releasing it through their own channels. FSF could simply say "Hey, we like this Linux kernel!" and incorporate it into the GNU project, the same way the Linux developers took the tools FSF was developing for GNU and said "Hey, we like these unix-like tools!" and incorporated them into the Linux OS.
FREEDOM is what it is all about, as Stallman would say. There's no reason why the FREE software carries with it the burden of naming conventions. If the Linux community is forced to call itself the GNU/Linux community because it uses the GNU tools, then the tools weren't free in the first place.
FSF is NOT the originator of the GNU/Linux project!
Well, that's not entirely correct. They're the ones who came up with the NAME "GNU/Linux".
Linus Torvalds came up with Linux, with the help of a team of hackers who like the kernel. Period.
He found some free tools from FSF that could be made to run under the Linux kernel. Seeing as they were free for the taking and using, he did so.
Now the FSF crowd has seen that by letting people do whatever they wanted with their code, they lose control of their code, and it can get assimilated into bigger projects. Tough. That's what freedom's all about.
That's not to say the FSF didn't do a kickass job. They did, but the reasons they're complaining - wanting recognition for their work, etc. etc., are the very reasons why software companies choose to control their code, so that they have the ability to say "You can use it, IF..."
It's Freedom, Baby, Yeah!
Just as an FYI, if someone REALLY wanted to get NSA.ORG from you, they'd point out to InterNIC/NSI that you're in violation of the user agreement by only having a single DNS server, and that they should drop the domain.
Something you might want to consider. I know they USED to enforce that way "back in the day", but I don't know about nowadays...
It looks like there are two entries for the book @ Amazon. I found the more "reasonably" priced version by doing a title search. I suspect that the "ludicrously overpriced" one is either a data entry error, or a signed-edition that isn't marked as such.
I doubt it... Yahoo runs all its web servers on FreeBSD, so I'm certain someone's using Linux in the same type of environment.
This is typical ZDNet crap. Can we have a ZDnet category made up so that all ZD stories, regardless of what they're about, can go in that category, so they can be summarily ignored? :)
I'm confused... what part of USWorst runs on Linux? I know it isn't their Internet side, because that's all FreeBSD?
Maybe a better answer to that would be "Companies who are contributing to the growth of Linux", which would still include like Applix, Corel, etc., but would not have us looking at every single company in the world that runs Linux somewhere. Let the growth of the "index" be tied to the success of the promoters...
Gimme a break. I like BeOS, but the bottom line is that Sanscrit has more people using it, and silly things like this is the reason for that.
I do care that they're not being forthcoming, but the bottom line is that the "affected population" for this problem is so frighteningly narrow as to approach nonexistence.
(very special thanks to Sam Kinison for that line)
Yeah, let's go back to the trees... no wait the trees were a bad idea too, let's go back to the oceans.
Most of the research NASA needs to do these days needs to be done in space, hence the need for the station. PLUS it will allow us to better explore the solar system, and be our first step into a much larger world.
People like you just don't get it, and probably never will.
I dunno... my SO thought of "Sneakers", "Braveheart", and the like as date movies so I guess it depends on who your date is. :)