It's possible. Check out the Technocracy - and no, this isn't some evil White Wolf RPG/Illuminati NWO agency hellbent on taking over the world. Check 'em out.
You know, I either heard or read in a book once, a notion of a society based entirely around IP. It was a completely open, free society, in which everything everyone said was well-documented and publically available. The trick was that whenever you quoted someone, or used one of their ideas, you had to talk to them about it and arrange some sort of payment or they could sue you. Production, labor and the like were all taken care of - technology and energy production had reached stages where it was pretty much trivial to do anything you wanted, and noone really HAD to "work" for a living. So the entire concept of wealth was based around your ideas; around what new ideas you could offer the world and how eager the world was to utilize those ideas. If you came up with something people liked, and used, you were compensated for it (sort of like the idealization of the Karma system here). If you never contributed, you stayed pretty much in anonymity. We're pretty close to being there, you know. We could very easily replace most people in most jobs with automated equivalents; we just don't in most cases because people are afraid to lose their jobs, and other people are afraid to make these people lose their jobs. We've grown up with this idea that what you do with your hands and the sweat on your back define your worth as a person, which leads to a bunch of people toiling away in dead-end, boring, unimaginative and just plain unpleasant jobs, that they admit regularly that they hate, because they feel they have to. What we need isn't just a redefinition of intellectual property or a redefinition of wealth; we need a redefinition of worth, at the fundamental, humanist level. An idea that a person isn't worth the money they make or the work they do. An idea that you're worth what you know, and what you help others to know. It sounds hopelessly, stupidly idealistic, right? One of those pipe-dreams that Internet pundits and sci-fi buffs talk about all teary-eyed. But it's entirely possible for such a system to conretely work. One of the first steps is to ENCOURAGE people to allow themselves to be replaced by automation. Put forward a publically funded project: If you can find a cost-effecive way to replace yourself with automation that will save your employer money, the government will offer to fund the patent-filing and research to realize it, on the condition that the profits and/or savings get split 33/33/33 between you, your employer, and the government. This will make EVERYBODY money, besides the fact that you no longer have to work for a living! The second step is to teach people that creative, original ideas to problems are not taboo. That "this is the way it's always been done" is a really stupid reason to do something, but that you should always make sure there isn't really a better one before you go ahead and change everything. Encourage people to THINK about what they're doing, not just blindly follow instructions. We have robots that can do that, thanks. Just about anything that a person can do physically, a robot can do better and cheaper. The real value of a human being these days is the neural net housed in its skull; we need to start utilizing these beautiful machines more effectively.
How could this possibly work, unless you had enough money to stand toe-to-toe with the MPAA? The fact remains that laws and rulings are for the most part bought, not voted or fought for, and unless you have the cash, you don't count. And if you DO have the cash, chances are you're just as big a problem as the people you're fighting.
No, really. Moose bites can be very dangerous. That bit of silliness out of my system, I realize that posts like this are engaged in as a sort of protest against Slashdot's sometimes Draconian anti-troll measures, but are they REALLY helping to solve the problem? More trolls means more draconian measure, and as we've all seen, more draconian measures means more trolls. SOMEONE has to show some maturity here and stop this cycle. For chrissakes, people, we aren't in highschool anymore. It is no longer funny to play "interruption" until someone cries. If you don't like Slashdot, don't whine about it, and definitely don't add your own piss to the pool. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
My question is a bit more on the technical side. "Clusters" seem to fall in a sort of new area between MPP neural networks and conventional computers. In general, are there any special tricks or differences in coding conventions between single-system boxes, typical custom MPP systems, and massively parallel, slow bandwidth "cluster" systems? Are there accepted new ways of efficiently utilizing the unique properties of a clustered approach (i.e.: genetic algorythms, simulated neural networs, auto-distributing MPP), or does one just "pretend it's a normal box, just lots bigger"? Further, can you point interested readers towards any material on learning to code for these bad boys?
It's the same reason the jocks in my neighborhood put used bubblegum on all the crosswalk push-buttons: they won't be around to see someone suffer, and they're certainly not getting anything out of the experience, but they KNOW they're ruining someone's day, and that's enough.
It's the same reason teenagers pour acid on cars in random parking lots belonging to people they don't even know: they certainly won't see the people they've just caused thousands of dollars of damage to (in fact, if they DO see them, they've failed) - but nonetheless, the damage has been done.
It's the same reason people put cyanide into asprin bottles at the supermarket: They have no clue who will get hit, but SOMEONE'S life is going to be ruined by their actions, and that's enough.
If this is the only means people have to demonstrate to themselves and to the universe that they matter, that their actions have had SOME affect on other people, then they'll do it. People need to believe that they matter, even if it's as monsters.
People do it because, fundamentally, it's FUN to screw the other guy over. There's an inherent human need to make other people worse than you - after all; life's effectively a zero-sum game, so making everyone else worse-off is just as effective as making yourself better-off, and oftentimes easier to do.
Nope. Join in the "civil disobedience" protests that actively oppose DMCA-backed products by publically and openly violating the Act. If enough people do it, the system will be forced to take notice.
As a practical matter, this exception is not yet in force as it is a defense to a violation of the prohibition on acts of circumvention - a prohibition that will not go into force until October 28, 2000.
You know, maybe this is something I'm just not getting... The prohibition on acts of circumvention doesn't go into force until October 28, 2000 - right? That means that DeCSS can't be prosecuted, because it was written before then - right? RIGHT?
On a similar note, I'm pretty sure I just read that the DMCA still won't into effect for a few more months - wouldn't that kinda-sorta poke a few holes into M$'s attack of Slashdot?
IANAL, and I assume these questions are just showing my ignorance of the whole situation.
Heh. Anyone here noticed the feedback loop we've all fallen into? People dislike things that Slashdot is doing, so they begin trashing it with 'trolls' and the like. This causes Slashdot to being implementing rather fascist techniques to attempt to cut down on the trolls. This causes more people to get fed up with things that Slashdot is doing, causing more people to behave in an immature manner. This causes Slashdot and the high-karma gang to implement MORE draconian measures to try to prevent the "growing spread of corruption". This causes MORE people to become offended, some rightfully so [any legal system will eventually hit someone innocent], causing MORE fed-up people to start behaving childishly. And noone's going to stop, because after all, "Hey, I didn't start it!" What are we to do?
Okay. A disclaimer before you read this, which SHOULDN'T be necessary, but years of getting slammed for voicing my opinions has indicated otherwise:
I am posting this publically and non-anonymously because I am not afraid to stand behind what I say. The email address above is my real e-mail, so anyone who decides to respond to my opinion by mail-bombing me, finding my IP and teardropping me, or hunting me down through my ISP and harrassing me/turning me in/threatening me is perfectly capable of doing so. All the same, I'd like to hope that you WOULDN'T. I'm perfectly willing to listen to logic and am reasonably capable of holding an intelligent debate, and I find acts of violence in resposne to an unpopular opinion rather distasteful. I hope you do too.
That being said, this entire situation sickens me - but for the opposite reasons. The problem here isn't child porn (in most cases), it's child porn laws, and worse, the culture that finds them necessary. It isn't sex with minors, it's statutory rape and "unlawful sex with a minor" laws, and worse, the culture that finds them necessary. If I haven't lost you let, hear out my reasons.
Our culture treats sex and alcohol more or less the same. It's something that you're not allowed to do until you're a certain age, at which point you can do whatever the hell you want. We don't try to convince our kids to act responsibly, we try to keep them unable to act at all. This is coercive and ultimately disrespectful to them.
My views on sexuality are admittedly a bit skewed. I recognize that humans past the age of puberty are inherently sexual creatures. That's the whole point of what puberty IS, right? The sexual maturation of the mammalian body? Any biologists out there, please feel free to give me any information on this. Anyways. The point is, once puberty has been reached, focus should be on educating minors (if you're under 18, you're a minor. If you're under puberty, you're a child. I will use these definitions throughout this post, so pay attention) on making mature choices for themselves, and not being afraid or ashamed of their bodies, their desires, or their needs. The sort of neurotic self-loathing that is induced by our society's fear-attraction of sex CREATES most of our sexual deviances, including pedophilia, incest, and rape. If we were allowed to act rationally and maturely on our desires instead of repressing them out of half-dead moral fears from thousand-year-old religions, maybe we'd all be a lot more relaxed and a lot less violent.
My personal guidelines on sex are much more stringent than most. If I love a girl, and she loves me, and we're both capable of realizing and maturely understanding this, I don't care if she's 14 or 40 - sex with her would be a precious and beautiful thing. If we aren't, then I don't care if she's 14 or 40 - sex with her would just be wrong. Now, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with casual sex. I'm merely saying that there's something VERY wrong with casual sex FOR ME, which is a decision I was perfectly capable of coming to at age 13, and before I had lost my virginity. What other people wish to do is their own business, and those who don't know should be allowed to find out in a nurturing and safe environment.
Love and sex should NEVER be used as a weapon, by ANYONE, on ANYONE. I don't care if you're 14 or 40. Sex is fun. For that matter, when done RIGHT, sex is the ultimate spiritual union between two (or more) people. I firmly believe that sex should bring us closer to God. It should not be cheapened. You want to do some good in the world? Stop imposing these neurotic restrictions on people and start teaching them to love each other instead of hate each other - or worse, see each other as disposable tools to use and discard at their leisure.
On another note, if all the intense energy that people focus towards hunting down purveyors of child pornography and 21-year-olds with 14-year-old girlfriends was instead focused towards hunting down men who rape their 7-year-old daughters and women who force their own 10-year-old daughter to go down on her 7-year-old daughter to make a child porn video (all three children, btw, are people I have personally known), I think we'd find ourselves with a lot less sexually fucked-up people in the next generation. Most of the sexual problems I know of start in the home. I could care less what two people, both past puberty, do with each other as long as noone walks away feeling worse for the experience. If someone does, then we need to look closely at who's to blame - society for making us guilty, one of the two for forcing themselves on the other, or someone else who damaged one of their sexual identities and self-esteem?
Here's the sort of society I'd like to see:
Upon the onset of puberty (first menstration or first erection), the child is taken aside and calmly and lovingly explained the basics of sex by both of their parents. They must be explained all possible consequences of their actions, and shown this explicitly. They should be allowed to go to others for further information without fear of punative action on either party. After this, the minor should be allowed to make up their own mind, through reason and experience, on what they want to do.
Repeat after me, people: Being male is not a crime. Being female is not a crime.
Shop standard. We're a non-profit, and Microsoft is a lead partner who has donated "millions of dollars" (worth of worthless NT, IIS and Office liscenses). I've been trying to convince them that it'd be worth dumping them as a partner just to get rid of the M$ tyrrany and let me do my work in Perl CGI instead of VB ASP, but I'm just a lowly programmer, and am not worthy even to speak to such luminaries as the Special Assistant to the Director or the IT Manager.
You know, this depresses me. Would you like to know how we got this? Our sysadmin, and MCSE, openned a copy of it from his girlfriend. He HAD to have seen the '.vbs' at the end. He had to. His girlfriend isn't a coder. What was he thinking? Worse, when I opened the file in Notepad to see what it was doing and figure out how to fix the damage it had caused, he responded by immediately shutting my computer down, and telling me to "get to work" and not to mess with it or he'd have me locked out of the system and fired - and then went ahead and locked me out of the system anyway. Worse [while drifting slightly off-topic], I've noticed a LOT of sysadmins acting this sort of way. What causes the BOFH syndrome, anyway? Why can't these people accept that their job is to keep the system running, not to make our lives miserable by constantly proving that they can make our lives miserable any time they want?
Actually, it's backwards. It says "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" right at address 0xE15. Check it yourselves, kids - I have no clue if this is a password or not, but it's definitely in there, right in the middle of the DLL's string table.
Hrm. I just had a thought... anyone who would be interested in putting together an organization dedicated to helping out minors [and even adults] who are being marginalized out of social institutions based on their interests, lack of social skills, dress, behavior, etc., my email address is bdill@uswest.net - please send me an e-mail with "[nerd4nerd]" somewhere in the subject line; when I go home tonight I'll talk to the admin of our home linux network to set up a mailing list. Talk is cheap - let's see some action.
Please forgive the following post for its meanderings... Personally, I don't believe this W.A.V.E. profiling is a bad thing at all. The ideals behind it are entirely misguided, but I think that public information should always take precedent over personal privacy. No, wait - hear me out. What if everything about you, every intimate moment, every thought, no matter how pure or profane, was laid bare for the whole world to see? Now what if EVERYONE ELSE was given the same treatment? How could a man stand up and accuse his brother of wrongdoing when his own sins were exposed to the world? We don't need privacy, people. We need honesty. We need an open and honest society, where everyone can't afford not to try to understand each other, where everyone works for the common good because not doing so is against their own self-interest, where everything you say and do is indesputably recorded. I have never seen true tolerance created by hiding the truth of who and what you are. The second benefit is accountability. A high-school who was tied up in a campus bathroom and anally raped with a broomhandle could go to his administrators and PROVE that it happened, and PROVE that he people he was accusing were the true culprits. When the school administration ignores him, he could then go to the local government - the state government if he had to - and PROVE that his very real greivances were being ignored - and noone would have the power to cover it up. Society would be forced to immediately address any injustices, as society begins to realize "THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ME." Privacy is really secrecy, and secrets only hurt the people they're being held over. For every homosexual terrified of being outed, for every closet BDSM fetishist afraid people will shun her for being weird, there would be a thousand people that would be forced to realize that many of the people they interact with - and respect - on a daily basis hold views, ideals and desires that they themselves consider reprehensible. It would force a complete re-thinking of what we consider "deviant". As to the profilers who want to turn this into another way to beat us down... fuck 'em. The only way to truly win against a 'moral majority' like this is to show them that there really are more of us than there are of them, and that half of them are really us in disguise. -Hentai [not afraid to wear the label... are you?]
That's an interesting point considering there has yet to be a single instance of a Biblical event being 'debunked' by science. A human interpretation of a Biblical event, maybe, but never an actual event itself...
That'd be great, if you can show me one single event - especially an event as charged with emotional subjectivity as any described in your average religious mythos - that can be divorced from the human interpretation of that event.
Remember, folks, the Bible is a mythos. It's all about human interpretation. The actual events are far less relevant than our moral interpretations of them - that's why the Bible is used primarily as a moral guide by today's society, not a history.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible. Check out the Technocracy - and no, this isn't some evil White Wolf RPG/Illuminati NWO agency hellbent on taking over the world. Check 'em out.
Anyone know how I can make 'Plain Old Text' my default choice? I keep hitting 'submit' but forgetting to change my format. ;)
You know, I either heard or read in a book once, a notion of a society based entirely around IP. It was a completely open, free society, in which everything everyone said was well-documented and publically available. The trick was that whenever you quoted someone, or used one of their ideas, you had to talk to them about it and arrange some sort of payment or they could sue you. Production, labor and the like were all taken care of - technology and energy production had reached stages where it was pretty much trivial to do anything you wanted, and noone really HAD to "work" for a living. So the entire concept of wealth was based around your ideas; around what new ideas you could offer the world and how eager the world was to utilize those ideas. If you came up with something people liked, and used, you were compensated for it (sort of like the idealization of the Karma system here). If you never contributed, you stayed pretty much in anonymity. We're pretty close to being there, you know. We could very easily replace most people in most jobs with automated equivalents; we just don't in most cases because people are afraid to lose their jobs, and other people are afraid to make these people lose their jobs. We've grown up with this idea that what you do with your hands and the sweat on your back define your worth as a person, which leads to a bunch of people toiling away in dead-end, boring, unimaginative and just plain unpleasant jobs, that they admit regularly that they hate, because they feel they have to. What we need isn't just a redefinition of intellectual property or a redefinition of wealth; we need a redefinition of worth, at the fundamental, humanist level. An idea that a person isn't worth the money they make or the work they do. An idea that you're worth what you know, and what you help others to know. It sounds hopelessly, stupidly idealistic, right? One of those pipe-dreams that Internet pundits and sci-fi buffs talk about all teary-eyed. But it's entirely possible for such a system to conretely work. One of the first steps is to ENCOURAGE people to allow themselves to be replaced by automation. Put forward a publically funded project: If you can find a cost-effecive way to replace yourself with automation that will save your employer money, the government will offer to fund the patent-filing and research to realize it, on the condition that the profits and/or savings get split 33/33/33 between you, your employer, and the government. This will make EVERYBODY money, besides the fact that you no longer have to work for a living! The second step is to teach people that creative, original ideas to problems are not taboo. That "this is the way it's always been done" is a really stupid reason to do something, but that you should always make sure there isn't really a better one before you go ahead and change everything. Encourage people to THINK about what they're doing, not just blindly follow instructions. We have robots that can do that, thanks. Just about anything that a person can do physically, a robot can do better and cheaper. The real value of a human being these days is the neural net housed in its skull; we need to start utilizing these beautiful machines more effectively.
How could this possibly work, unless you had enough money to stand toe-to-toe with the MPAA? The fact remains that laws and rulings are for the most part bought, not voted or fought for, and unless you have the cash, you don't count. And if you DO have the cash, chances are you're just as big a problem as the people you're fighting.
Gods, I sound like a communist.
No, really. Moose bites can be very dangerous. That bit of silliness out of my system, I realize that posts like this are engaged in as a sort of protest against Slashdot's sometimes Draconian anti-troll measures, but are they REALLY helping to solve the problem? More trolls means more draconian measure, and as we've all seen, more draconian measures means more trolls. SOMEONE has to show some maturity here and stop this cycle. For chrissakes, people, we aren't in highschool anymore. It is no longer funny to play "interruption" until someone cries. If you don't like Slashdot, don't whine about it, and definitely don't add your own piss to the pool. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
My question is a bit more on the technical side. "Clusters" seem to fall in a sort of new area between MPP neural networks and conventional computers. In general, are there any special tricks or differences in coding conventions between single-system boxes, typical custom MPP systems, and massively parallel, slow bandwidth "cluster" systems? Are there accepted new ways of efficiently utilizing the unique properties of a clustered approach (i.e.: genetic algorythms, simulated neural networs, auto-distributing MPP), or does one just "pretend it's a normal box, just lots bigger"? Further, can you point interested readers towards any material on learning to code for these bad boys?
Because they CAN.
It's the same reason the jocks in my neighborhood put used bubblegum on all the crosswalk push-buttons: they won't be around to see someone suffer, and they're certainly not getting anything out of the experience, but they KNOW they're ruining someone's day, and that's enough.
It's the same reason teenagers pour acid on cars in random parking lots belonging to people they don't even know: they certainly won't see the people they've just caused thousands of dollars of damage to (in fact, if they DO see them, they've failed) - but nonetheless, the damage has been done.
It's the same reason people put cyanide into asprin bottles at the supermarket: They have no clue who will get hit, but SOMEONE'S life is going to be ruined by their actions, and that's enough.
If this is the only means people have to demonstrate to themselves and to the universe that they matter, that their actions have had SOME affect on other people, then they'll do it. People need to believe that they matter, even if it's as monsters.
People do it because, fundamentally, it's FUN to screw the other guy over. There's an inherent human need to make other people worse than you - after all; life's effectively a zero-sum game, so making everyone else worse-off is just as effective as making yourself better-off, and oftentimes easier to do.
Nope. Join in the "civil disobedience" protests that actively oppose DMCA-backed products by publically and openly violating the Act. If enough people do it, the system will be forced to take notice.
You know, maybe this is something I'm just not getting... The prohibition on acts of circumvention doesn't go into force until October 28, 2000 - right? That means that DeCSS can't be prosecuted, because it was written before then - right? RIGHT?
On a similar note, I'm pretty sure I just read that the DMCA still won't into effect for a few more months - wouldn't that kinda-sorta poke a few holes into M$'s attack of Slashdot?
IANAL, and I assume these questions are just showing my ignorance of the whole situation.
Heh. Anyone here noticed the feedback loop we've all fallen into? People dislike things that Slashdot is doing, so they begin trashing it with 'trolls' and the like. This causes Slashdot to being implementing rather fascist techniques to attempt to cut down on the trolls. This causes more people to get fed up with things that Slashdot is doing, causing more people to behave in an immature manner. This causes Slashdot and the high-karma gang to implement MORE draconian measures to try to prevent the "growing spread of corruption". This causes MORE people to become offended, some rightfully so [any legal system will eventually hit someone innocent], causing MORE fed-up people to start behaving childishly. And noone's going to stop, because after all, "Hey, I didn't start it!" What are we to do?
Okay. A disclaimer before you read this, which SHOULDN'T be necessary, but years of getting slammed for voicing my opinions has indicated otherwise:
I am posting this publically and non-anonymously because I am not afraid to stand behind what I say. The email address above is my real e-mail, so anyone who decides to respond to my opinion by mail-bombing me, finding my IP and teardropping me, or hunting me down through my ISP and harrassing me/turning me in/threatening me is perfectly capable of doing so. All the same, I'd like to hope that you WOULDN'T. I'm perfectly willing to listen to logic and am reasonably capable of holding an intelligent debate, and I find acts of violence in resposne to an unpopular opinion rather distasteful. I hope you do too.
That being said, this entire situation sickens me - but for the opposite reasons. The problem here isn't child porn (in most cases), it's child porn laws, and worse, the culture that finds them necessary. It isn't sex with minors, it's statutory rape and "unlawful sex with a minor" laws, and worse, the culture that finds them necessary. If I haven't lost you let, hear out my reasons.
Our culture treats sex and alcohol more or less the same. It's something that you're not allowed to do until you're a certain age, at which point you can do whatever the hell you want. We don't try to convince our kids to act responsibly, we try to keep them unable to act at all. This is coercive and ultimately disrespectful to them.
My views on sexuality are admittedly a bit skewed. I recognize that humans past the age of puberty are inherently sexual creatures. That's the whole point of what puberty IS, right? The sexual maturation of the mammalian body? Any biologists out there, please feel free to give me any information on this. Anyways. The point is, once puberty has been reached, focus should be on educating minors (if you're under 18, you're a minor. If you're under puberty, you're a child. I will use these definitions throughout this post, so pay attention) on making mature choices for themselves, and not being afraid or ashamed of their bodies, their desires, or their needs. The sort of neurotic self-loathing that is induced by our society's fear-attraction of sex CREATES most of our sexual deviances, including pedophilia, incest, and rape. If we were allowed to act rationally and maturely on our desires instead of repressing them out of half-dead moral fears from thousand-year-old religions, maybe we'd all be a lot more relaxed and a lot less violent.
My personal guidelines on sex are much more stringent than most. If I love a girl, and she loves me, and we're both capable of realizing and maturely understanding this, I don't care if she's 14 or 40 - sex with her would be a precious and beautiful thing. If we aren't, then I don't care if she's 14 or 40 - sex with her would just be wrong. Now, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with casual sex. I'm merely saying that there's something VERY wrong with casual sex FOR ME, which is a decision I was perfectly capable of coming to at age 13, and before I had lost my virginity. What other people wish to do is their own business, and those who don't know should be allowed to find out in a nurturing and safe environment.
Love and sex should NEVER be used as a weapon, by ANYONE, on ANYONE. I don't care if you're 14 or 40. Sex is fun. For that matter, when done RIGHT, sex is the ultimate spiritual union between two (or more) people. I firmly believe that sex should bring us closer to God. It should not be cheapened. You want to do some good in the world? Stop imposing these neurotic restrictions on people and start teaching them to love each other instead of hate each other - or worse, see each other as disposable tools to use and discard at their leisure.
On another note, if all the intense energy that people focus towards hunting down purveyors of child pornography and 21-year-olds with 14-year-old girlfriends was instead focused towards hunting down men who rape their 7-year-old daughters and women who force their own 10-year-old daughter to go down on her 7-year-old daughter to make a child porn video (all three children, btw, are people I have personally known), I think we'd find ourselves with a lot less sexually fucked-up people in the next generation. Most of the sexual problems I know of start in the home. I could care less what two people, both past puberty, do with each other as long as noone walks away feeling worse for the experience. If someone does, then we need to look closely at who's to blame - society for making us guilty, one of the two for forcing themselves on the other, or someone else who damaged one of their sexual identities and self-esteem?
Here's the sort of society I'd like to see:
Upon the onset of puberty (first menstration or first erection), the child is taken aside and calmly and lovingly explained the basics of sex by both of their parents. They must be explained all possible consequences of their actions, and shown this explicitly. They should be allowed to go to others for further information without fear of punative action on either party. After this, the minor should be allowed to make up their own mind, through reason and experience, on what they want to do.
Repeat after me, people: Being male is not a crime. Being female is not a crime.
Sex is not a crime.
Shop standard. We're a non-profit, and Microsoft is a lead partner who has donated "millions of dollars" (worth of worthless NT, IIS and Office liscenses). I've been trying to convince them that it'd be worth dumping them as a partner just to get rid of the M$ tyrrany and let me do my work in Perl CGI instead of VB ASP, but I'm just a lowly programmer, and am not worthy even to speak to such luminaries as the Special Assistant to the Director or the IT Manager.
You know, this depresses me. Would you like to know how we got this? Our sysadmin, and MCSE, openned a copy of it from his girlfriend. He HAD to have seen the '.vbs' at the end. He had to. His girlfriend isn't a coder. What was he thinking? Worse, when I opened the file in Notepad to see what it was doing and figure out how to fix the damage it had caused, he responded by immediately shutting my computer down, and telling me to "get to work" and not to mess with it or he'd have me locked out of the system and fired - and then went ahead and locked me out of the system anyway. Worse [while drifting slightly off-topic], I've noticed a LOT of sysadmins acting this sort of way. What causes the BOFH syndrome, anyway? Why can't these people accept that their job is to keep the system running, not to make our lives miserable by constantly proving that they can make our lives miserable any time they want?
Actually, it's backwards. It says "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" right at address 0xE15. Check it yourselves, kids - I have no clue if this is a password or not, but it's definitely in there, right in the middle of the DLL's string table.
Gods, this post is BEGGING for Dissociated Press.
Hrm. I just had a thought... anyone who would be interested in putting together an organization dedicated to helping out minors [and even adults] who are being marginalized out of social institutions based on their interests, lack of social skills, dress, behavior, etc., my email address is bdill@uswest.net - please send me an e-mail with "[nerd4nerd]" somewhere in the subject line; when I go home tonight I'll talk to the admin of our home linux network to set up a mailing list. Talk is cheap - let's see some action.
Please forgive the following post for its meanderings... Personally, I don't believe this W.A.V.E. profiling is a bad thing at all. The ideals behind it are entirely misguided, but I think that public information should always take precedent over personal privacy. No, wait - hear me out. What if everything about you, every intimate moment, every thought, no matter how pure or profane, was laid bare for the whole world to see? Now what if EVERYONE ELSE was given the same treatment? How could a man stand up and accuse his brother of wrongdoing when his own sins were exposed to the world? We don't need privacy, people. We need honesty. We need an open and honest society, where everyone can't afford not to try to understand each other, where everyone works for the common good because not doing so is against their own self-interest, where everything you say and do is indesputably recorded. I have never seen true tolerance created by hiding the truth of who and what you are. The second benefit is accountability. A high-school who was tied up in a campus bathroom and anally raped with a broomhandle could go to his administrators and PROVE that it happened, and PROVE that he people he was accusing were the true culprits. When the school administration ignores him, he could then go to the local government - the state government if he had to - and PROVE that his very real greivances were being ignored - and noone would have the power to cover it up. Society would be forced to immediately address any injustices, as society begins to realize "THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ME." Privacy is really secrecy, and secrets only hurt the people they're being held over. For every homosexual terrified of being outed, for every closet BDSM fetishist afraid people will shun her for being weird, there would be a thousand people that would be forced to realize that many of the people they interact with - and respect - on a daily basis hold views, ideals and desires that they themselves consider reprehensible. It would force a complete re-thinking of what we consider "deviant". As to the profilers who want to turn this into another way to beat us down... fuck 'em. The only way to truly win against a 'moral majority' like this is to show them that there really are more of us than there are of them, and that half of them are really us in disguise. -Hentai [not afraid to wear the label... are you?]
That's an interesting point considering there has yet to be a single instance of a Biblical event being 'debunked' by science. A human interpretation of a Biblical event, maybe, but never an actual event itself...
That'd be great, if you can show me one single event - especially an event as charged with emotional subjectivity as any described in your average religious mythos - that can be divorced from the human interpretation of that event.
Remember, folks, the Bible is a mythos. It's all about human interpretation. The actual events are far less relevant than our moral interpretations of them - that's why the Bible is used primarily as a moral guide by today's society, not a history.