Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to...
I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather trust individuals to make decisions about their own lives, you'd rather trust the government to make laws to tell us what we can do.
The Cato Institute did an analysis of drug legalization back in 1989. Their conclusion was, among other things, that if currently-illegal drugs were legalized, fewer people would die from drugs each year-- counting tobacco and alcohol as drugs-- because heroin and cocaine have lower death rates than alcohol and tobacco, and if they were legalized, people would likely give up alcohol and tobacco in favor of them. Oh, and the death rate from marijuana is so low as to be statistically zero.
I'm not proposing lighter treatment on anyone. I'm proposing that this country actually take the Bill of Rights and civil liberties seriously. You're the one that wants to take away constitutional rights of drug dealers to help the War on Drugs, and I say that that's too high of a price to pay. When anyone's rights are taken away, all of us lose, because those that want power and control will try to take it away from the lowest first (i.e. drug dealers), and they can count on people like you mindlessly cheering them on, while they make plans to expand their rights-grabbing.
Do you think that drug dealers would break into your home if drugs were legal? How many liquor store owners get caught breaking into homes? How many people each year are killed over cigarette turf wars? Your home being broken into is a direct consequence of the War on Drugs, the very thing you support!
I don't see the users as victims at all. Certainly some get addicted to the various addictive drugs, and get locked into a vicious cycle, but the War on Drugs isn't helping them; in fact a lot of work that could be done to help them is actually made illegal by the War on Drugs.
The cost of dealing drugs has been made high already-- the result is that drug prices went up, and the rewards for dealing went up as well. This is simple supply and demand. As the financial rewards for drug dealing go up, the drug dealers have more money to play the legal system with. Thus they can afford better lawyers and are more likely to escape legal consequences. It's the people around them that get screwed-- they get sucked into the legal system as well, except they don't have the drug profits to defend themselves with, so they get packed off to jail, since they can't even turn someone else in for a lighter sentence.
So the short version is: drug laws are already as tough as they can be w/o taking away constitutional rights-- and in fact rights are being infringed already. Drugs are as prevalent as they ever have been. 60 percent of the prison inmates are there because of drug-related crimes, as opposed to 2.5 percent violent crimes. The War on Drugs has been fought and lost; it's time to admit that and choose another path.
I'm presuming you live in the USA; it's not entirely clear from your user profile.
If you want draconian no-nonsense drug laws, I would suggest you move to Singapore. They shoot drug dealers on the spot there. Course, they don't have these pesky things called constitutional rights over there, but it's quite clear from your tone and attitude that you don't care about such things.
Since you in typical fashion ignored the entire point of my post, let me put it to you more directly: suppose someone framed you for drug possession. How would you like to be treated by the US police and criminal justice system?
Purdue was given some 12-bit X terminals from HP around 1991 or so. The color on them was ugly as sin. To a man everyone preferred the 256 color palette that Sun 3/60s had, unless you were just running a monochrome X setup anyways. I can't imagine that this will look any better.
Big deal. W's company had been bleeding money steadily before, during, and afterwards. Nobody ever claimed he was a good businessman. It's only the people that continue to whine about the 2000 election (get a clue, it's now 2002) whine about Bush's financial past.
I don't give a fsck whether Clinton got a blowjob or not. But he did lie about it under oath, and last time I read the law, lying about anything under oath, even if it was what you had for breakfast yesterday morning, is a felony. That's right, a felony. Something that W hasn't committed and your hero, x42, has.
And the stock price was well above $4 not too long after that. This is a non-issue, even the most desparate Democrats aren't using it. He sold the stock to buy the Texas Rangers, a deal that had been coming for a while beforehand. Nothing to see here, move along.
It's amazing how many people don't realize that stocks go up, stocks go down, especially small companies. I suppose it just means that those on the far loony left are grasping for straws if this is the best they can come up with.
Everyone here sounds like popups are the work of the devil and should be banned from the Internet. Someone needs to put things into perspective here.
So how can I pay my bills that total nearly $3,000 a month for this "free" service (and make a profit in the end)? Popunders. This is what advertisers are willing to pay for these days. Am I a sinner that should be crusified for supporting this ad format?
Let me get this right. You sell your soul to the devil, and then complain that those that have religion are raining hellfire down on you?
You seem to forget that the web is and always has been a user-controlled medium. Web browsers don't have to be 800x600 or 640x480, hell I can make mine 1000x20 if I want to. If I want to change my local DNS so that ads.losercompany.com resolves to 127.0.0.1 instead of your ad-generating box, that's your problem, not mine. And the moment you start spouting obvious bull$#!+ like
YES it is stealing from that Web site to not have their ad load
is the point where I just sit back and point and laugh at you. It is the height of arrogance to proclaim that I'm somehow stealing from you because I didn't do something you asked me to. You can generate all the bits in the world you want, but as soon as they come across the net into my computer, they're mine to do with inside my computer however I want. Your rights end where my computer begins. If that means that you can't make as much money as you thought you were going to be able to, then guess what: try again, loser. No one has the right to make money.
It's been a while since I've looked up the stats, but the dollar value for felony copyright violations of software is something insanely low. And of course they use the full retail price for determining value (kind of like how game shows do it), so simply pirating some high-cost software like Photoshop or Office can get you near if not over the dollar limit all by themselves. I know that technically I was a felon back in the late 1980s thanks to all those PC games I copied using CopyIIPC-- but then again so was everyone I knew, and computer stuff was way under the national radar back then.
No, I understand it perfectly; said code should be ran on the phone-home machine, which itself was a compromised host. The trojan tries to phone home, gets an A from the yes, and aborts.
Since the trojan dies if it sees an A first thing, obviously the guy running the box it's trying to contact should run something like this:
yes "A" | nc -p 6667
Then every daemon that connects gets an A right away, and thus dies. End of problem.
Re:I never forgave 'em for killing Creative Comput
on
Ziff Davis Teeters
·
· Score: 2
Enh David Ahl, founder, claimed it was the first microcomputer magazine. Take it up with him.
I never forgave 'em for killing Creative Computing
on
Ziff Davis Teeters
·
· Score: 2
Ziff-Davis in my mind still stands out for being the ones that bought, then folded, Creative Computing, which was the original very first computer magazine.
To my mind, this is roughly equivalent to USA Today buying out, then folding, the New York Times.
What creativity or derived works are being encouraged by this? How is the original producer being protected from being ripped off? She's been dead for over 50 years.
Personally, I think we need a copyright reform law titled the Happy Birthday law. Let people know that they're "ripping off" Warner Brothers by singing Happy Birthday!
Seems like the causation in this study is going the wrong direction-- difficulty with social association et al would tend to make one more likely to want to play video games, where those attributes aren't a detriment. Video games require 0 social association, they don't care if you yell and scream at them and generally make an ass of yourself (unless you actually break the game, of course), and you don't have to concentrate on anything outside the screen.
In 1994, I took a job at a bank in Oklahoma. My boss at the time had the attitude "We're a bank, we pay for software".
Then I showed him screen. Suddenly the light went on in his head-- "Hey, I don't have to use 2 phone lines and 2 modems to get 2 shells at work!" To him, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
After that, he didn't have any problems letting me install emacs.:-)
3) This is the first serious security hole OpenBSD has had in nearly 6 years.
For extra credit, compute the following: average number of days between disclosure and fix, times the cost of the upgrade that gives it to you, times the number of remote-root-level security exploits in your average BorgOS over 6 years.
I've already proposed taxing new laws ( http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=fi n9901&itemid=14184 -- adding links to posts seems to be broken right now, also please delete the damn space slashcode insists on adding); it'd be simple to extend this to add even heavier taxes to lawmakers that vote for laws that are later found unconstitutional.
Of course the only way to get something like this implemented is by the same lawmakers that would be taxed by this, so good luck getting *that* to happen.
There are two excellent reasons that so many people use Exchange.
1) In general, it works out of the box. A company with someone with meager knowledge can set up a fairly complex mail handling system without much help.
And that same person with meager knowledge is going to get hacked six ways from Sunday when the next Exchange exploit comes around, because what's not included in that meager knowledge is that you have to keep up on security patches if you want your easy-to-install mail server to not be an easy-to-hack mail server.
2) It does A LOT. In it's most basic configuration it does what you need 10 or more programs in Linux to do, not to mention that most of those 10 don't exist.
And God help you if one (or many) of those pieces of Exchange are broken or don't do what you want to do. Can't change it, it's part of Exchange! At least if one of those 10 linux programs are broken or doesn't work right, you can replace it with something better without affecting all the other parts.
These are simple philosophic differences between Unix and Borg. Borg stuff usually has a shallow learning curve at the beginning, but then it ramps up as you discover things that are difficult or impossible to do. Whereas, the initial Unix learning curve may be steep, but it flattens out further in.
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
Ok, so this means that Microsoft using the BSD networking code (open source) and making an immense profit is illegal under the DMCA? Cool!
Hell, Gould was 64-bit in 1989
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
Back in 1989, I had an account at Purdue on a Gould NP/1 that was a 64-bit system (en.ecn.purdue.edu, if anyone remembers). It was pretty much a standardish Unix; the biggest problem back then was that a lot of people simply presumed that ints and pointers could be cast back and forth, which failed miserably when your ints were 32 bits and your pointers were 64 bits. A friend of mine (hi Mav!) got nethack 2.2 to compile on it without much effort, sent email to the devteam saying how he'd gotten nethack to compile on a Gould NP/1, and got email back basically saying "what the hell kind of box is that?" Last I checked, though, it's still listed in the nethack credits as an OS that nethack has been ported to in the past.
About 2.5 months ago, I wrote an article in my livejournal about how to solve the problem where Big Company spends money forever on a case, draining the Little Guy. Check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it didn't make it because the editors rejected it at least once. (I know, I posted it.)
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to...
I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather trust individuals to make decisions about their own lives, you'd rather trust the government to make laws to tell us what we can do.
The Cato Institute did an analysis of drug legalization back in 1989. Their conclusion was, among other things, that if currently-illegal drugs were legalized, fewer people would die from drugs each year-- counting tobacco and alcohol as drugs-- because heroin and cocaine have lower death rates than alcohol and tobacco, and if they were legalized, people would likely give up alcohol and tobacco in favor of them. Oh, and the death rate from marijuana is so low as to be statistically zero.
Don't take my word for it-- read it for yourself.
I'm not proposing lighter treatment on anyone. I'm proposing that this country actually take the Bill of Rights and civil liberties seriously. You're the one that wants to take away constitutional rights of drug dealers to help the War on Drugs, and I say that that's too high of a price to pay. When anyone's rights are taken away, all of us lose, because those that want power and control will try to take it away from the lowest first (i.e. drug dealers), and they can count on people like you mindlessly cheering them on, while they make plans to expand their rights-grabbing.
Do you think that drug dealers would break into your home if drugs were legal? How many liquor store owners get caught breaking into homes? How many people each year are killed over cigarette turf wars? Your home being broken into is a direct consequence of the War on Drugs, the very thing you support!
I don't see the users as victims at all. Certainly some get addicted to the various addictive drugs, and get locked into a vicious cycle, but the War on Drugs isn't helping them; in fact a lot of work that could be done to help them is actually made illegal by the War on Drugs.
The cost of dealing drugs has been made high already-- the result is that drug prices went up, and the rewards for dealing went up as well. This is simple supply and demand. As the financial rewards for drug dealing go up, the drug dealers have more money to play the legal system with. Thus they can afford better lawyers and are more likely to escape legal consequences. It's the people around them that get screwed-- they get sucked into the legal system as well, except they don't have the drug profits to defend themselves with, so they get packed off to jail, since they can't even turn someone else in for a lighter sentence.
So the short version is: drug laws are already as tough as they can be w/o taking away constitutional rights-- and in fact rights are being infringed already. Drugs are as prevalent as they ever have been. 60 percent of the prison inmates are there because of drug-related crimes, as opposed to 2.5 percent violent crimes. The War on Drugs has been fought and lost; it's time to admit that and choose another path.
I'm presuming you live in the USA; it's not entirely clear from your user profile.
If you want draconian no-nonsense drug laws, I would suggest you move to Singapore. They shoot drug dealers on the spot there. Course, they don't have these pesky things called constitutional rights over there, but it's quite clear from your tone and attitude that you don't care about such things.
Since you in typical fashion ignored the entire point of my post, let me put it to you more directly: suppose someone framed you for drug possession. How would you like to be treated by the US police and criminal justice system?
10 ounces of pot: $1000
1 blotter sheet of acid: $500
Planting them on your favorite brain-dead supporter of the War on Drugs and watching him try to explain his innocence to the police: priceless.
There are some things, like civil liberties, that money can't buy. For everything else, there's a good lawyer*.
*Until drug dealers are prohibited by law from enjoying the right to an attorney, that is.
Purdue was given some 12-bit X terminals from HP around 1991 or so. The color on them was ugly as sin. To a man everyone preferred the 256 color palette that Sun 3/60s had, unless you were just running a monochrome X setup anyways. I can't imagine that this will look any better.
Big deal. W's company had been bleeding money steadily before, during, and afterwards. Nobody ever claimed he was a good businessman. It's only the people that continue to whine about the 2000 election (get a clue, it's now 2002) whine about Bush's financial past.
I don't give a fsck whether Clinton got a blowjob or not. But he did lie about it under oath, and last time I read the law, lying about anything under oath, even if it was what you had for breakfast yesterday morning, is a felony. That's right, a felony. Something that W hasn't committed and your hero, x42, has.
And the stock price was well above $4 not too long after that. This is a non-issue, even the most desparate Democrats aren't using it. He sold the stock to buy the Texas Rangers, a deal that had been coming for a while beforehand. Nothing to see here, move along.
It's amazing how many people don't realize that stocks go up, stocks go down, especially small companies. I suppose it just means that those on the far loony left are grasping for straws if this is the best they can come up with.
Everyone here sounds like popups are the work of the devil and should be banned from the Internet. Someone needs to put things into perspective here.
So how can I pay my bills that total nearly $3,000 a month for this "free" service (and make a profit in the end)? Popunders. This is what advertisers are willing to pay for these days. Am I a sinner that should be crusified for supporting this ad format?
Let me get this right. You sell your soul to the devil, and then complain that those that have religion are raining hellfire down on you?
You seem to forget that the web is and always has been a user-controlled medium. Web browsers don't have to be 800x600 or 640x480, hell I can make mine 1000x20 if I want to. If I want to change my local DNS so that ads.losercompany.com resolves to 127.0.0.1 instead of your ad-generating box, that's your problem, not mine. And the moment you start spouting obvious bull$#!+ like
YES it is stealing from that Web site to not have their ad load
is the point where I just sit back and point and laugh at you. It is the height of arrogance to proclaim that I'm somehow stealing from you because I didn't do something you asked me to. You can generate all the bits in the world you want, but as soon as they come across the net into my computer, they're mine to do with inside my computer however I want. Your rights end where my computer begins. If that means that you can't make as much money as you thought you were going to be able to, then guess what: try again, loser. No one has the right to make money.
It's been a while since I've looked up the stats, but the dollar value for felony copyright violations of software is something insanely low. And of course they use the full retail price for determining value (kind of like how game shows do it), so simply pirating some high-cost software like Photoshop or Office can get you near if not over the dollar limit all by themselves. I know that technically I was a felon back in the late 1980s thanks to all those PC games I copied using CopyIIPC-- but then again so was everyone I knew, and computer stuff was way under the national radar back then.
No, I understand it perfectly; said code should be ran on the phone-home machine, which itself was a compromised host. The trojan tries to phone home, gets an A from the yes, and aborts.
Since the trojan dies if it sees an A first thing, obviously the guy running the box it's trying to contact should run something like this:
yes "A" | nc -p 6667
Then every daemon that connects gets an A right away, and thus dies. End of problem.
Enh David Ahl, founder, claimed it was the first microcomputer magazine. Take it up with him.
Ziff-Davis in my mind still stands out for being the ones that bought, then folded, Creative Computing, which was the original very first computer magazine.
To my mind, this is roughly equivalent to USA Today buying out, then folding, the New York Times.
So you think that there's nothing wrong with Warner Brothers making $1M/year on the copyright to Happy Birthday?
What creativity or derived works are being encouraged by this? How is the original producer being protected from being ripped off? She's been dead for over 50 years.
Personally, I think we need a copyright reform law titled the Happy Birthday law. Let people know that they're "ripping off" Warner Brothers by singing Happy Birthday!
Seems like the causation in this study is going the wrong direction-- difficulty with social association et al would tend to make one more likely to want to play video games, where those attributes aren't a detriment. Video games require 0 social association, they don't care if you yell and scream at them and generally make an ass of yourself (unless you actually break the game, of course), and you don't have to concentrate on anything outside the screen.
In 1994, I took a job at a bank in Oklahoma. My boss at the time had the attitude "We're a bank, we pay for software".
:-)
Then I showed him screen. Suddenly the light went on in his head-- "Hey, I don't have to use 2 phone lines and 2 modems to get 2 shells at work!" To him, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
After that, he didn't have any problems letting me install emacs.
The difference here is:
1) The problem was fixed in a couple of days
2) The upgrade was free
3) This is the first serious security hole OpenBSD has had in nearly 6 years.
For extra credit, compute the following: average number of days between disclosure and fix, times the cost of the upgrade that gives it to you, times the number of remote-root-level security exploits in your average BorgOS over 6 years.
I've already proposed taxing new laws ( http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=fi n9901&itemid=14184 -- adding links to posts seems to be broken right now, also please delete the damn space slashcode insists on adding); it'd be simple to extend this to add even heavier taxes to lawmakers that vote for laws that are later found unconstitutional.
Of course the only way to get something like this implemented is by the same lawmakers that would be taxed by this, so good luck getting *that* to happen.
If you think that viruses are the only way to exploit security holes, then you're the perfect example of that person with meager knowledge from 1).
There are two excellent reasons that so many people use Exchange.
1) In general, it works out of the box. A company with someone with meager knowledge can set up a fairly complex mail handling system without much help.
And that same person with meager knowledge is going to get hacked six ways from Sunday when the next Exchange exploit comes around, because what's not included in that meager knowledge is that you have to keep up on security patches if you want your easy-to-install mail server to not be an easy-to-hack mail server.
2) It does A LOT. In it's most basic configuration it does what you need 10 or more programs in Linux to do, not to mention that most of those 10 don't exist.
And God help you if one (or many) of those pieces of Exchange are broken or don't do what you want to do. Can't change it, it's part of Exchange! At least if one of those 10 linux programs are broken or doesn't work right, you can replace it with something better without affecting all the other parts.
These are simple philosophic differences between Unix and Borg. Borg stuff usually has a shallow learning curve at the beginning, but then it ramps up as you discover things that are difficult or impossible to do. Whereas, the initial Unix learning curve may be steep, but it flattens out further in.
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
Ok, so this means that Microsoft using the BSD networking code (open source) and making an immense profit is illegal under the DMCA? Cool!
Back in 1989, I had an account at Purdue on a Gould NP/1 that was a 64-bit system (en.ecn.purdue.edu, if anyone remembers). It was pretty much a standardish Unix; the biggest problem back then was that a lot of people simply presumed that ints and pointers could be cast back and forth, which failed miserably when your ints were 32 bits and your pointers were 64 bits. A friend of mine (hi Mav!) got nethack 2.2 to compile on it without much effort, sent email to the devteam saying how he'd gotten nethack to compile on a Gould NP/1, and got email back basically saying "what the hell kind of box is that?" Last I checked, though, it's still listed in the nethack credits as an OS that nethack has been ported to in the past.
About 2.5 months ago, I wrote an article in my livejournal about how to solve the problem where Big Company spends money forever on a case, draining the Little Guy. Check it out.