I once ran a web server uner RH6.0 on a box that refused to run NT4 Server, as it had been struck by lightening, and still had the burn marks inside the case to prove it.
However, Ray Martino, Symbol's vice president of wireless network products, said that credit card data wouldn't normally be among the traffic that's broadcast through the air. Credit card purchases still require authorization from a bank, meaning the traffic must travel over a phone line.
This just goes to show how incompetent VP's can be. How do you think that the data gets from the wireless registers to the device that dials the auth co, or that routes it across the leased line?
Just another example of the Peter (or Dilbert) principle at work.
I'll keep this in mind when the crack house up the street which is lowering the property values in the neighborhood, sells some bad crack to a pimp, who also happens to beat girls, goes on a tear and kills the next door neighbor.
Again, there are laws against assault and battery and murder. The selling of the drugs in and of itself poses no risk to anyone except the user. (And yes, if someone tries to drive while high, there are laws against that as well.)
And if you live down the street from a crackhouse, move. No one is forcing you to live there.
There are several reports that the hijackers told the people on the plane what was happening, that they were all about to die, and to call their families to say goodbye.
However, given my feelings as a father also, I would have to agree with the previous poster. NO ONE hurts my baby girl.
Since this never happened, I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning. That is a pretty freaking scary thought.
There's a map of the planes' flight path here that leads me to believe that the pilots were in control for a period of time. Notice how the flight path is straight, and then they all suddenly turn?
Re:More information about the Slashcode change.
on
Welcome to Slashdot 2.2
·
· Score: 0, Troll
It's not that far behind. Of course, this goes back to the age old adage, "Who watches the watchers?"
The theory you propose might be to some too extremist. However, it has come to be a socially acceptable way of controlling the masses in modern society, utilizing everything from public bookburnings, to jamming radio waves at territorial borders, to simply outlawing and prosecuting "offending" material.
Again, they would lose that bit of tracking data.
However, they probably think that is an acceptable loss Vote Vader in 2000! http://www.vaderfor2000.org
It is outdated because people don't need guns to protect themselves anymore,
How then should we protect ourselves from someone that intends to do us harm? Some would answer that the local law encorcement is there to protect us, but that is simply wrong. The job of the police department is to arrest the perpertrator of a crime once the crime has been committed. They are not there to protect us from wrongdoers; as an example, there was a story in the local media here where a mother traded her daughter for crack in a crackhouse. The police knew that the house she was in was a crackhouse, but they did not have sufficient proof to legally execute a warrant. As a result, the 2 year old girl was found dead in a closet in the house 2 weeks later.
The only thing guns are used for is violent crime, where people are robbed, raped, mugged and killed by criminals who have easy access to the vast amount of guns in America.
Really? I know several people who own guns (I work with many of them) and I would not classify them as people that would "rob, rape, mug, or kill" someone. That argument is fundamentally flawed; a gun is just a tool, much like a wrench, or even a knife...you can use a knife to spread butter with, or to cut someone's throat. It is the person that uses the tool that determines the outcome.
And then there is all the shootings recently by children who took the guns from their parent's houses, where they were kept fully loaded in easy to reach places.
While that is true, we need to place the blame where it is due, on the parents. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children are properly educated on the use of firearms and their potentially devastating effects on others. If these children had been told that these guns are not toys, that there is real consequences for their actions (something that IMHO is missing from a lot of households today...) then these events probably would not have happened. Granted, if a child knows what will happen when they pull the trigger, and they choose to do it anyway, then the child is at fault. Just don't go accusing the child of everything...the parents play a big role in this as well.
If we didn't allow the ownership of guns these wouldn't have happened, would they?
Let's not kid ourselves. The very definition of a criminal is someone that does not obey the laws. If a criminal has a gun, it is most likely illegally obtained. Gun control laws will do nothing more than ensure that the law-abiding populace will have no means of defending themselves, and thereby make themselves a better target for those that have little regard for the laws in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I once ran a web server uner RH6.0 on a box that refused to run NT4 Server, as it had been struck by lightening, and still had the burn marks inside the case to prove it.
Why not? After all, isn't that how this site started?
However, Ray Martino, Symbol's vice president of wireless network products, said that credit card data wouldn't normally be among the traffic that's broadcast through the air. Credit card purchases still require authorization from a bank, meaning the traffic must travel over a phone line.
This just goes to show how incompetent VP's can be. How do you think that the data gets from the wireless registers to the device that dials the auth co, or that routes it across the leased line?
Just another example of the Peter (or Dilbert) principle at work.
I'll keep this in mind when the crack house up the street which is lowering the property values in the neighborhood, sells some bad crack to a pimp, who also happens to beat girls, goes on a tear and kills the next door neighbor.
Again, there are laws against assault and battery and murder. The selling of the drugs in and of itself poses no risk to anyone except the user. (And yes, if someone tries to drive while high, there are laws against that as well.)
And if you live down the street from a crackhouse, move. No one is forcing you to live there.
Just my $.02
HSHSHH
Where on earth did you come up with that .sig?
:-)
ROTFLMAO
There are several reports that the hijackers told the people on the plane what was happening, that they were all about to die, and to call their families to say goodbye.
However, given my feelings as a father also, I would have to agree with the previous poster. NO ONE hurts my baby girl.
Sure, you can fashion almost anything into a weapon, but it's far easier to defend against a knife than it is a gun.
Up until yesterday, I would have agreed with you. However, thousands of people are dead now, because someone couldn't defend against a knife.
Since this never happened, I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning. That is a pretty freaking scary thought.
There's a map of the planes' flight path here that leads me to believe that the pilots were in control for a period of time. Notice how the flight path is straight, and then they all suddenly turn?
I wondered how long it would take...
Damn goatse.cx.
It's not that far behind. Of course, this goes back to the age old adage, "Who watches the watchers?"
The theory you propose might be to some too extremist. However, it has come to be a socially acceptable way of controlling the masses in modern society, utilizing everything from public bookburnings, to jamming radio waves at territorial borders, to simply outlawing and prosecuting "offending" material.
Scary.
Vote Vader in 2000!
http://www.vaderfor2000.org
Again, they would lose that bit of tracking data.
However, they probably think that is an acceptable loss
Vote Vader in 2000!
http://www.vaderfor2000.org
It is outdated because people don't need guns to protect themselves anymore,
How then should we protect ourselves from someone that intends to do us harm? Some would answer that the local law encorcement is there to protect us, but that is simply wrong. The job of the police department is to arrest the perpertrator of a crime once the crime has been committed. They are not there to protect us from wrongdoers; as an example, there was a story in the local media here where a mother traded her daughter for crack in a crackhouse. The police knew that the house she was in was a crackhouse, but they did not have sufficient proof to legally execute a warrant. As a result, the 2 year old girl was found dead in a closet in the house 2 weeks later.
The only thing guns are used for is violent crime, where people are robbed, raped, mugged and killed by criminals who have easy access to the vast amount of guns in America.
Really? I know several people who own guns (I work with many of them) and I would not classify them as people that would "rob, rape, mug, or kill" someone. That argument is fundamentally flawed; a gun is just a tool, much like a wrench, or even a knife...you can use a knife to spread butter with, or to cut someone's throat. It is the person that uses the tool that determines the outcome.
And then there is all the shootings recently by children who took the guns from their parent's houses, where they were kept fully loaded in easy to reach places.
While that is true, we need to place the blame where it is due, on the parents. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children are properly educated on the use of firearms and their potentially devastating effects on others. If these children had been told that these guns are not toys, that there is real consequences for their actions (something that IMHO is missing from a lot of households today...) then these events probably would not have happened. Granted, if a child knows what will happen when they pull the trigger, and they choose to do it anyway, then the child is at fault. Just don't go accusing the child of everything...the parents play a big role in this as well.
If we didn't allow the ownership of guns these wouldn't have happened, would they?
Let's not kid ourselves. The very definition of a criminal is someone that does not obey the laws. If a criminal has a gun, it is most likely illegally obtained. Gun control laws will do nothing more than ensure that the law-abiding populace will have no means of defending themselves, and thereby make themselves a better target for those that have little regard for the laws in the first place.
Now that I've put in my $.02...
Vote Vader in 2000!
http://www.vaderfor2000.org