One nanotechnology expert, Glenn H. Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, said that someday it might even be used to make tiny robots that would lodge in people's brains and make them truly love Big Brother.
Yes, they have, but they run it through the "Modern Political Power Grubbing and Affirmation Grammatical Parser" which locates and finds any instance of phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed", then replaces them them with phrases along these lines, "Must make despotic law" and "Must be abolished".
You'd be better off signing up to the MS security lists. Their security bulletins are posted, updated with patch info, and patches posted in the security sections LONG before they show up on Windows Update. IIRC, last year, one of the IE 5.0 buffer overflows, which was posted to MS Security bulletins, and passed around the electronic news sites, took over 3 weeks to appear on Windows Update after the fix was made available through the MS Security bulletins.
Windows Update is nice and convient when you set up a new PC, and need to get a bunch of patches on it quick and easy, but you should be conservative and assume that it is out-of-date, and double check.
So will that work on MS SQL Server 6.5, or will I need to use MS SQL Server 7 or 2000? Does it have to on a separate PC from IIS, or can I just leave it on my IIS PC so it can record the worm as it goes out, too?
I am using the 'sa' with blank password, will that work?
The administrator inserts a Millennium installation DVD disk into one of the machines and the system propagates across the network
MS Lawyer: We see from our records that you purchased one (1) copy of Millennium, yet you have a network of over five hundred (500) machines running Millennium. You have 24 hours to pay us for those licenses your are using, but did not pay for. And to show you that we are serious, you have 12 hours.
My vote is for appropriately-armed sky marshals on board, if not every plane, at least those deemed to be higher risk.
This is a good measure, and a valid use of tax-dollars and ticket income, IMO. I would like there to be a random unpublished number of sky-marshals on flights as well. However, I disagree that an appropriately armed sky marshal is a better solution than an appropriately armed citizen. In line with proper ID, a citizen who wants to carry a weapon (not neccessarily a firearm!) on a plane must provide ID certifying that he is qualified to. Having to qualify, to an appropriate minimum, one's skill, judgement and resposibility for one's actions and their consequences is quite reasonable.
(Getting up on soapbox) I'd like to see regs along these lines:
A random number of Air Marshals posted on all commercial flights in US airspace. They should be armed with handguns for concealability. Said guns should be loaded mith frangible, rubber or otherwise low to non-penetrative ammunition.
Armed passengers are encouraged, and must meet minimum req's. They must have certification (an airborne CCW, as it were) for the carrying of weapons in an airplane situation. Training for the defensive use of a handgun, bladed or blunt instrument in an airplane situation would be req'd for carry.
Tickets and boarding passes should be marked for armed citizens in a non-obvious to the human eye manner. In the mag-stripe perhaps. Tickets can be scanned at the security points. Armed-class passengers will be ID'd only to those manning the checkpoint, and all scanning results should be visible only to them.
Just a few suggestions. Airborne carry permits would be as legal as CCWs are. I know that I would attend training for carrying of a handgun, and get certification. I would volunteer to teach the same, if I were qualified to do so. I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of people out there who would volunteer as well. Perhaps ticket prices could be marginally lower for certified and armed passengers?
How to do a weapons check and only have the ones checking see the results? That is definitely harder. The metal detectors in place now aren't particularly discreet. Perhaps every passenger could stand in a booth closed on 3 sides, face the back and open their coat? Metal detection and shape analysis scanning? If their ticket has the appropriate "armed" rating for detected weapons, they could be passed without calling attention to the fact that they're armed. Suspicious metals/shapes for passengers without an "armed" rating on their ticket could be handled as they do now, handheld scanners, questions, possible detainment. Of course, there would have to be a well-trained human overseeing the process.
It might be similar to the weapon scanner in "Total Recall."
Yes, the verb in that sentence is the word "is", but it's implied by the context. The word "is" is not in possession of implied, so the possessive form of the pronoun "it" is out of place in your sentence.
On the other hand, poor grammer or spelling is a sure way to look stupid.
Well said. We should always strive for proper spelling and good grammar.
We have never received any NT 4 CD with more that Service Pack 1 on it. We have received SP 3 and SP 4 with it, on the Option Pack CD. The last CD of NT 4 we purchased, was purchased well after SP 6 was out, repaired and re-released as SP 6a, and only SP 4 was included, and included as an "optional" add-on.
But, to give MS credit where credit is due, I just verified that the Win2000 Pro OEM CDs we got 8 days ago do in fact have SP2 already applied to them.
So THAT'S what happened to my brother. He would play a Nintendo game (and later Amiga and IBM PC games), and suddendly start screaming about, "I Dragon-punched you!" and, "Sho-ryu-kan, sho-ryu-kan, god-dammit! AAAAAAAA". I couldn't figure out why he would play games that caused him such instense suffering. Now I know, and my heart goes out to him for being subjected to such torture at the hands of such sadists.
Has anybody run this past the experts at FOX? They pointed out that the moon landing was a fake, so they should be able to make short work of this. After all, they have an investigative reporter and a camera maker to provide them with incontrovertible opinions.
Personally, I have no problem with prohibitions against burning our country's most visible symbol, but I do respect your right to feel otherwise.
Thank you for saying that. I quoting a voice with a name I cannot place at the moment, "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to preserve your right to say it." I cannot but help thinking and believing that restricting someone's right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to some or many is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment, and the ideals it represents. IMO, the 1st provides protection for speech that IS offensive to someone, or many someones. As long as an expression of speech does not endanger the safety of others, the suppression of that speech is oppression. From my perspective, burning our flag is a very effective expression of protest, since it IS such a venerated symbol of what our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters have suffered for, fought for, and died for. Many people tend to forget that one of the things that our flag represents, and one of things that Americans have suffered, fought and died for, is Freedom of Speech, which includes unpopular speech, even unpopular speech that brings tears to our eyes and breaks our hearts. My suggestion that we burn our flags was not made lightly, nor was it a knee-jerk reaction. I deeply believe that our flag is a visible symbol of America and it's ideals. Oppression of one of our most highly prized rights, Freedom of Speech, by the government, in making laws about what is and is not permissable speech, is a desecration of America, its ideals and it's flag. Such a law is much more disrespectful than burning the flag in protest against a government action, it is tantamount to Congress dropping their metaphorical trousers, and dropping a load of shit on the flag.
I'm afraid the fervor with which some seem to want to defend such a "right" has an eery parallel to those who would wish to exercise it abroad.
I understand. The most visible are almost always tho ones who overreact, and do so in a most innapropriate way. Preserving our rights does not mean running out to attack those who may or may not agree or disagree with us, but rather letting our views be known. Trying to force someone to our viewpoint through violence is wrong, but allowing the government to "get its foot in the door" to regulating what we can and cannot say by whipping up public opinion at a time when we are emotionally very vulnerable is just as wrong. Who is this law aimed at? The images on TV of American flags be burned is angering to me, but I haven't seen and pictures of it happening here. Does passing a law restricting American's rights cause the people in Afghanistan who are burning American flags to stop?
Before you bring it up, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater is dangerous, and can cause, and I am certain has caused panic and injury.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I certainly have no objection to proper identification being required on a airline. What I object to is being required to be unarmed, and to be made as defenseless as possible. If those regulations came from each airline, as business and safety practices, it would be a matter of "business as usual" and simply not giving them my business would suffice. But, these regulations come from a Federally appointed (not elected) government body, in direct violation of Constitutional law, and as such should not be tolerated by Americans. What right are you giving up? The right to self-respect, self-defense and responsibilty to your own life, safety and dignity, and your duty to help others keep and protect their own.
I have no right to tell you that you must exercise your right to be at all times armed. I personally may feel that by not doing so, you, I (I am not allowed to carry a firearm at work, due to company policy. I do not agree with this policy, but I am permitted non-firearm measures so I do the best I can. It still rankles a bit, and I feel less safe than I would if I was able to take more precautions for my safety. I need the job, though, so I have make a trade-off.) and others have failed America, our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters by not doing so, but I do not wish to force my beliefs on another by trampling what they believe. All I can say is, I will not get on an airliner unarmed. If that means I don't get on a an airliner ever again, so be it. Air travel is not the only made of travel, as you state. With the current restrictions in place, it is an unacceptable risk to me to make use of it. I think and believe that many of these restrictions are unreasonable, unconstitutional and only serve to make air travel less safe, and I will let my opinion be known to my Senators and Representatives. If these restricitions are lifted, and people still choose to not be armed on an airline, that is a choice made by them, not for them. There are many mature, intelligent and responsible people in this country who will choose to be armed, and to do so safely and responsibly.
IMO these regulations on self-defense have no effect except to produce a more-vulnerable captive audience.
Slashdot is a load of old crap with contributions from a bunch of smelly spotty sex-starved geeks who think something like an operating system can actually be cool
You can say this on/., and be thought funny. Just don't ask about Anne Tomlinson.
"Last night I was listening to Queen and the Bangles, and I thought, man, What A Wonderful World it would be, if a large man dressed as a woman, a Killer Queen, as it were, would Walk Like An Egyptian.
Boy, That'd Be The Day.
Oh, well. I need to get going again, out there with my Traveln' Band."
Salaam"
Man, it seems random, but it just screams "SUSPECT!" The guy probably listens to such other terrifying lyrics as "I got a friend in Jesus!" and "the forests will echo with laughter." Hell, he's probably the kind of person that would "roll-oll-oll with the punches, and get to work still".
So how does this relate to Carnivore? As I understand it, from the reports that have been coming out, that the FBI has just been showing up with Carnivore boxes, and telling the ISPs to install them. No warrants for specific people, no wiretap orders, just install it. Also, as I understand it, the bill on its way to becoming law allows just that, no warrants, no subpoenas, no wiretap orders, just intall it, and let it sift through ALL traffic.
From Amendment IV:...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is no probable cause here, supported by any Oath or affirmation, and no "particular description" of the place to be searched. As such, no warrant can be issued for this action, so Congress has decided to do away with warrants.
The interesting thing is, the recommended disposal of an American flag, IIRC, is burning. Granted, the circumstances are not the same, but, again IIRC, throwing the flag into the garbage is dishonorable, whereas burning is more reverent.
In any case, should a law against flag-burning be passed, I think that every American should gather and burn their flags, since such a law is such an affront to the ideals that the flag stands for.
Lowered crime rates can be attributed to any thing.
True. As could the so-called increase that you claim occurs when more people have guns. Show me a detailed, reality-based study showing that gun-related crime rises when more non-criminals have guns.
Also gun related crimes may be up while the overall crime rate drops. There could be more murders but less muggings or shoplifting.
Are you suggesting that murder is the only crime committed where the perpetrator used a gun? Why would you believe that mugger would not use a gun?
...can warn the medical team on the other side of
the ocean if it was running out of surgical tape or other key
materials.
Duct tape can easily replace a empty surgical tape dispenser. Rubber cement, Swingline staplers and binder clips are pretty common, so the robot will be able to refill with the "next best thing" in case of a supply shortage.
Slashdot Mirror
One nanotechnology expert, Glenn H. Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, said that someday it might even be used to make tiny robots that would lodge in people's brains and make them truly love Big Brother.
Well, they'd have to. That show fucking sucked.
Yes, they have, but they run it through the "Modern Political Power Grubbing and Affirmation Grammatical Parser" which locates and finds any instance of phrases like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed", then replaces them them with phrases along these lines, "Must make despotic law" and "Must be abolished".
Maybe this should be pointed out to the RIAA, then sit back and watch the vultures attack the Borg.
You'd be better off signing up to the MS security lists. Their security bulletins are posted, updated with patch info, and patches posted in the security sections LONG before they show up on Windows Update. IIRC, last year, one of the IE 5.0 buffer overflows, which was posted to MS Security bulletins, and passed around the electronic news sites, took over 3 weeks to appear on Windows Update after the fix was made available through the MS Security bulletins.
Windows Update is nice and convient when you set up a new PC, and need to get a bunch of patches on it quick and easy, but you should be conservative and assume that it is out-of-date, and double check.
Some of my favorite places to eat, such as Penn Station, White Castle and Steak'n'Shake are cash-only. I don't like to consider a Slider-free society.
So will that work on MS SQL Server 6.5, or will I need to use MS SQL Server 7 or 2000? Does it have to on a separate PC from IIS, or can I just leave it on my IIS PC so it can record the worm as it goes out, too?
I am using the 'sa' with blank password, will that work?
The administrator inserts a Millennium installation DVD disk into one of the machines and the system propagates across the network
MS Lawyer: We see from our records that you purchased one (1) copy of Millennium, yet you have a network of over five hundred (500) machines running Millennium. You have 24 hours to pay us for those licenses your are using, but did not pay for. And to show you that we are serious, you have 12 hours.
Seeing as how we are unfamiliar with sarcasm, I will close the cash register at this point.
--Comic Book Guy
This is a good measure, and a valid use of tax-dollars and ticket income, IMO. I would like there to be a random unpublished number of sky-marshals on flights as well. However, I disagree that an appropriately armed sky marshal is a better solution than an appropriately armed citizen. In line with proper ID, a citizen who wants to carry a weapon (not neccessarily a firearm!) on a plane must provide ID certifying that he is qualified to. Having to qualify, to an appropriate minimum, one's skill, judgement and resposibility for one's actions and their consequences is quite reasonable.
(Getting up on soapbox) I'd like to see regs along these lines:
A random number of Air Marshals posted on all commercial flights in US airspace. They should be armed with handguns for concealability. Said guns should be loaded mith frangible, rubber or otherwise low to non-penetrative ammunition.
Armed passengers are encouraged, and must meet minimum req's. They must have certification (an airborne CCW, as it were) for the carrying of weapons in an airplane situation. Training for the defensive use of a handgun, bladed or blunt instrument in an airplane situation would be req'd for carry.
Tickets and boarding passes should be marked for armed citizens in a non-obvious to the human eye manner. In the mag-stripe perhaps. Tickets can be scanned at the security points. Armed-class passengers will be ID'd only to those manning the checkpoint, and all scanning results should be visible only to them.
Just a few suggestions. Airborne carry permits would be as legal as CCWs are. I know that I would attend training for carrying of a handgun, and get certification. I would volunteer to teach the same, if I were qualified to do so. I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of people out there who would volunteer as well. Perhaps ticket prices could be marginally lower for certified and armed passengers?
How to do a weapons check and only have the ones checking see the results? That is definitely harder. The metal detectors in place now aren't particularly discreet. Perhaps every passenger could stand in a booth closed on 3 sides, face the back and open their coat? Metal detection and shape analysis scanning? If their ticket has the appropriate "armed" rating for detected weapons, they could be passed without calling attention to the fact that they're armed. Suspicious metals/shapes for passengers without an "armed" rating on their ticket could be handled as they do now, handheld scanners, questions, possible detainment. Of course, there would have to be a well-trained human overseeing the process.
It might be similar to the weapon scanner in "Total Recall."
Just say, "This is bad, look!" ;)
Just like PETA, huh?
Perhaps we should read it as, "The owners of bought and paid for members of" Congress shall?
A very good point. Only the government is specifically restricted by the Constitution. Misleading subject to the main article as well, wasn't it?
The verb is "is" but its implied by the context.
Yes, the verb in that sentence is the word "is", but it's implied by the context. The word "is" is not in possession of implied, so the possessive form of the pronoun "it" is out of place in your sentence.
On the other hand, poor grammer or spelling is a sure way to look stupid.
Well said. We should always strive for proper spelling and good grammar.
We have never received any NT 4 CD with more that Service Pack 1 on it. We have received SP 3 and SP 4 with it, on the Option Pack CD. The last CD of NT 4 we purchased, was purchased well after SP 6 was out, repaired and re-released as SP 6a, and only SP 4 was included, and included as an "optional" add-on.
But, to give MS credit where credit is due, I just verified that the Win2000 Pro OEM CDs we got 8 days ago do in fact have SP2 already applied to them.
So THAT'S what happened to my brother. He would play a Nintendo game (and later Amiga and IBM PC games), and suddendly start screaming about, "I Dragon-punched you!" and, "Sho-ryu-kan, sho-ryu-kan, god-dammit! AAAAAAAA". I couldn't figure out why he would play games that caused him such instense suffering. Now I know, and my heart goes out to him for being subjected to such torture at the hands of such sadists.
Has anybody run this past the experts at FOX? They pointed out that the moon landing was a fake, so they should be able to make short work of this. After all, they have an investigative reporter and a camera maker to provide them with incontrovertible opinions.
Personally, I have no problem with prohibitions against burning our country's most visible symbol, but I do respect your right to feel otherwise.
Thank you for saying that. I quoting a voice with a name I cannot place at the moment, "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to preserve your right to say it." I cannot but help thinking and believing that restricting someone's right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to some or many is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment, and the ideals it represents. IMO, the 1st provides protection for speech that IS offensive to someone, or many someones. As long as an expression of speech does not endanger the safety of others, the suppression of that speech is oppression. From my perspective, burning our flag is a very effective expression of protest, since it IS such a venerated symbol of what our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters have suffered for, fought for, and died for. Many people tend to forget that one of the things that our flag represents, and one of things that Americans have suffered, fought and died for, is Freedom of Speech, which includes unpopular speech, even unpopular speech that brings tears to our eyes and breaks our hearts. My suggestion that we burn our flags was not made lightly, nor was it a knee-jerk reaction. I deeply believe that our flag is a visible symbol of America and it's ideals. Oppression of one of our most highly prized rights, Freedom of Speech, by the government, in making laws about what is and is not permissable speech, is a desecration of America, its ideals and it's flag. Such a law is much more disrespectful than burning the flag in protest against a government action, it is tantamount to Congress dropping their metaphorical trousers, and dropping a load of shit on the flag.
I'm afraid the fervor with which some seem to want to defend such a "right" has an eery parallel to those who would wish to exercise it abroad.
I understand. The most visible are almost always tho ones who overreact, and do so in a most innapropriate way. Preserving our rights does not mean running out to attack those who may or may not agree or disagree with us, but rather letting our views be known. Trying to force someone to our viewpoint through violence is wrong, but allowing the government to "get its foot in the door" to regulating what we can and cannot say by whipping up public opinion at a time when we are emotionally very vulnerable is just as wrong. Who is this law aimed at? The images on TV of American flags be burned is angering to me, but I haven't seen and pictures of it happening here. Does passing a law restricting American's rights cause the people in Afghanistan who are burning American flags to stop?
Before you bring it up, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater is dangerous, and can cause, and I am certain has caused panic and injury.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
I certainly have no objection to proper identification being required on a airline. What I object to is being required to be unarmed, and to be made as defenseless as possible. If those regulations came from each airline, as business and safety practices, it would be a matter of "business as usual" and simply not giving them my business would suffice. But, these regulations come from a Federally appointed (not elected) government body, in direct violation of Constitutional law, and as such should not be tolerated by Americans. What right are you giving up? The right to self-respect, self-defense and responsibilty to your own life, safety and dignity, and your duty to help others keep and protect their own.
I have no right to tell you that you must exercise your right to be at all times armed. I personally may feel that by not doing so, you, I (I am not allowed to carry a firearm at work, due to company policy. I do not agree with this policy, but I am permitted non-firearm measures so I do the best I can. It still rankles a bit, and I feel less safe than I would if I was able to take more precautions for my safety. I need the job, though, so I have make a trade-off.) and others have failed America, our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters by not doing so, but I do not wish to force my beliefs on another by trampling what they believe. All I can say is, I will not get on an airliner unarmed. If that means I don't get on a an airliner ever again, so be it. Air travel is not the only made of travel, as you state. With the current restrictions in place, it is an unacceptable risk to me to make use of it. I think and believe that many of these restrictions are unreasonable, unconstitutional and only serve to make air travel less safe, and I will let my opinion be known to my Senators and Representatives. If these restricitions are lifted, and people still choose to not be armed on an airline, that is a choice made by them, not for them. There are many mature, intelligent and responsible people in this country who will choose to be armed, and to do so safely and responsibly.
IMO these regulations on self-defense have no effect except to produce a more-vulnerable captive audience.
Slashdot is a load of old crap with contributions from a bunch of smelly spotty sex-starved geeks who think something like an operating system can actually be cool
/., and be thought funny. Just don't ask about Anne Tomlinson.
You can say this on
Shouldn't that be,
"Last night I was listening to Queen and the Bangles, and I thought, man, What A Wonderful World it would be, if a large man dressed as a woman, a Killer Queen, as it were, would Walk Like An Egyptian.
Boy, That'd Be The Day.
Oh, well. I need to get going again, out there with my Traveln' Band."
Salaam"
Man, it seems random, but it just screams "SUSPECT!" The guy probably listens to such other terrifying lyrics as "I got a friend in Jesus!" and "the forests will echo with laughter." Hell, he's probably the kind of person that would "roll-oll-oll with the punches, and get to work still".
So how does this relate to Carnivore? As I understand it, from the reports that have been coming out, that the FBI has just been showing up with Carnivore boxes, and telling the ISPs to install them. No warrants for specific people, no wiretap orders, just install it. Also, as I understand it, the bill on its way to becoming law allows just that, no warrants, no subpoenas, no wiretap orders, just intall it, and let it sift through ALL traffic.
...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
From Amendment IV:
There is no probable cause here, supported by any Oath or affirmation, and no "particular description" of the place to be searched. As such, no warrant can be issued for this action, so Congress has decided to do away with warrants.
The interesting thing is, the recommended disposal of an American flag, IIRC, is burning. Granted, the circumstances are not the same, but, again IIRC, throwing the flag into the garbage is dishonorable, whereas burning is more reverent.
In any case, should a law against flag-burning be passed, I think that every American should gather and burn their flags, since such a law is such an affront to the ideals that the flag stands for.
Lowered crime rates can be attributed to any thing.
True. As could the so-called increase that you claim occurs when more people have guns. Show me a detailed, reality-based study showing that gun-related crime rises when more non-criminals have guns.
Also gun related crimes may be up while the overall crime rate drops. There could be more murders but less muggings or shoplifting.
Are you suggesting that murder is the only crime committed where the perpetrator used a gun? Why would you believe that mugger would not use a gun?
Accidental death statistics
Some studies on the subject of crime and firearms.
We haven't for a long, long time, neighbor.
NCL's a Consistent License.
Shouldn't that be NIL for: NIL's an Inconsistent License?
...arthroscopic...that means scoping a joint....most gallbladders aren't found inside joints
Maybe that's why she had to have it taken out?
...can warn the medical team on the other side of the ocean if it was running out of surgical tape or other key materials.
Duct tape can easily replace a empty surgical tape dispenser. Rubber cement, Swingline staplers and binder clips are pretty common, so the robot will be able to refill with the "next best thing" in case of a supply shortage.