How do you know they don't have a disability? What makes you so certain that the people you see with handicap license plates are just "lazy and inconsiderate"? Did you ask any of these people what their disability was, or did you just assume that, since you didn't see a wheelchair, or crutches, or the "blind man" cane, they were lazy?
The DMV doesn't give these license tags out to anyone who requests them. To get a handicap license plate, you have to prove to the DMV that you have a limiting disability. However, the disability does not have to be visible; many diabilities that the DMV considers as limiting are "invisible"; you can't see the problem just by looking at the person.
The common example of this is advanced heart disease. Because the heart is not able to pump at capacity, the person's ability to function is limited. They tire easily, have difficulty walking, and are under constant threat of heart attacks.
Another example is back injury or disease. Scoleosis can leave its victim looking "normal", yet severely impacts their ability to function.
How about artificial legs? Have you taken a close look at prosthetic legs lately? They're pretty damn realistic looking, and the wearers can, and often do, get to the point were they can walk normally. But, I guess that since you can't tell the leg's false, and the wearer looks normal, they're just "lazy and inconsiderate."
Ever had a stroke? You know: blood clot lodges in an artery and causes damage to the brain. The victim is often left with partial paralysis, but they look "normal", and can function to a limited degree. The DMV considers this to be a limiting disability. How silly that DMV is, giving handicap license plates to these "lazy and inconsiderate" people.
How about Parkinson's Disease? Multiple Sclerosis? Cystic Fibrosis? Severe diabetes? Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis? Cancer? All diseases or conditions that can leave the victim with a limited ability to function. They're just "lazy and inconsiderate", right?
Yes, there are people that abuse the system; there always will be, but don't assume that, just because you can't see a disability, the disability doesn't exist.
I've heard of people being very fond of their computers, but that's taking it a bit too far!:-)
Seriously, though, the USB ports on my work machine (Dell Precision 220) stopped working shortly after I plugged my Visor Edge's USB cradle in. At first I thought it was a problem with Win2K, so I reloaded the OS, but that didn't help. I did some tests, and found that the ports no longer send out any signal of any type. No power. Nothing. Win2K detects the ports, but I can't get them to function.
Since I don't use any other USB devices at work, and I have a serial cradle for my Visor, it hasn't been a big concern.
They forgot the most important game of all time: Zero Wing.
Any game with such gripping dialogue as:
"What you say?", "Someone set up us the bomb!!!", "You have no chance to survive make your time," and the unforgettable "All your base are belong to us" surely deserves to rank at the top of this list.
Why, I haven't seen dialogue delivery that compelling since my high school's rendition of Hamlet.
Probably not, given that pretty much every software license I've ever read (including Microsoft's) has a clause that says something to the effect of "use this software at your own risk. We do not warrant it to function properly, etc. etc. etc."
My personal favorite license warning comes with some Java VMs, and warns you against using Java for weapons, hospital equipment, and nuclear plants. Damn, and I so wanted to operate that nuclear reactor with my web browser.
I was always under the impression that war can only be declared by one sovereign nation on another. Since drugs/guns/sex/abortion/cellphones/video games/Pikachu/monkeys/dot.coms/dot.bombs/Dot the Robot Maid, etc., etc., etc. aren't sovereign nations, how can the United States government declare war on any of them?
Futhermore, doesn't it take an act of Congress to declare war? I think I read that somewhere in the Constitution of the United States. Article I Section 8, if I recall.
Finally, didn't the United States Civil War decide, once and for all, that the individual states cannot declare war? That they are, in fact, not sovereign nations in their own right, but merely self-governing provinces of the US Federal Govt.? If so, then how can a state declare war on anything?
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I'm honestly curious, and confused.
Think strategically. Let CT pass this "anti-violent video game" law. Encourage the CT governor to sign it into law. Rejoice when the law is passed; make sure that everyone knows which politician proposed this law. Do everything in your power to get his/her name heard in relation to this law. Make CT and this politician's names household words.
And then sic the ACLU on the state of Connecticut. File a massive class-action lawsuit against CT claiming abridgement of First Amendment protections. Argue that all video games are art, and, though some may be considered obscene, they are all protected by the Constitution. Get the lawsuit to drag out as long as possible. Make it so horribly expensive for Connecticut that the state eventually has to declare bankruptcy.
And when CT loses the lawsuit before the US Supreme Court (which has historically protected many forms of speech and art, even obscene), launch a massive media campaign pointing all of Connecticut's woes at this stupid law, and the politician that originally proposed it.
The end result is that video games are declared a protected form of art, and no other state will be able to pass a similar anti-violent video game law. Oh, and that stupid politician's career will be over. He'll be lucky to get a job at "The Snappy Snack Shack" frying Cheez-o-ritos.
If Larry Flynt could win First Amendment protection for Hustler magazine, I'm sure we could do the same for video games.
If they did, all the people who played PacMan when they were young would now be running round in darkened rooms, listening to repetetive electronic music and munching pills!!
Why exactly was this assinine comment modded to 2? What crack-smoking moderator made the decision to mod this to 2?
Remember, only a fool makes a comment such as yours. A true master offers guidance and encouragement to an obvious newbie, in the hope that a new master shall one day emerge.
Understood. And my point isn't that you should go out and fix every system that exists. That's impossible. What I'm saying is that, instead of showering SlashDot, and the rest of the world, with more of this "I'm the King of the SysAdmins" ego crap, you should do what you can to help prevent these problems from propogating.
What will you do if one of your friends whom you've warned doesn't update his system? Are you going to insult him? Call him stupid? "Gee, I'm really sorry you got rooted. If you weren't so stupid, this wouldn't have happened." I'm sure he'll have tons of respect for you after that.
Sorry, that was getting a bit personal, which is not at all what I intend.
Anys, my point is that we, as a community, need to move away from the collective Holier-Than-Thou attitude that has become so deeply ingrained. The Linux movement is based strongly on the concept of a group of people helping each other to find the best solution to a problem. The solution slips out of our reach when we become a bunch of egomaniacal bastards.
If someone you know (that's any of you out there!) does get rooted by this exploit, don't thrash them for not updating their system. Instead, give them a hand. Help them recover from the damage. Offer suggestions on how to prevent these sorts of problems in the future. If they don't understand, teach them. You don't have to be Superman; if all you do is help one person, then that's one less computer that's at risk.
We're not at war with each other, gentlemen (and ladies!) We're at war with the little monkeyshits who take advantage of these exploits to do damage.
The only people this will affect are the ones dumb enough to have installed bind and not used it, or incompetent sysadmins who deserve to get burned.
Ahh, that wonderful ego showing its head again. Yes, all sysadmins wish they could be as perfect as you.
Lose the attitudes, people. Mistakes are made, patches are overlooked. It happens. It will continue to happen. There's nothing that can be done about it. And your arrogance isn't doing the rest of the world any good.
Perhaps, instead of insulting and complaining, you should try actually helping. You know a sysadmin that's a little weak in some areas? Give 'em a hand. Help 'em out. Be proactive.
You wonder why so many non-techies view us as raving lunatics, or arrogant shits. This is why. All we ever seem to do is foam at the mouth about how everything not Linux is evil, and that Open Source is the One True Way. And then we strut around like pumped-up little martinets, so convinced of our own greatness, and the mistaken belief that we are infallible.
Anyone here who makes the claim that they have never made a mistake configuring a server has either never configured a server, or is lying through their teeth.
But then, I suppose that for us to admit that we have screwed up from time to time would then force us to admit that we're not nearly as perfect as we like to think, and that, just perhaps, those egos and attitudes we've stroked so hard aren't worth a damn.
Re:rootness and capabilities
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
I think it has to do with the ports that Apache and Sendmail bind to when they start. Since all ports below 1024 are privledged, only root processes can bind to them. So, I assume that means that's the reason these daemons have to run as root.
Is there a way that you can give a UID rights to bind to specific ports, even if the port's below the 1024 range? If so, then you could theoretically make a user named WWW that can only bind to ports 80 and 443 (SSL, right?) and then run Apache using the UID.
Actually, I believe evidence has come to light that indicates the Mars Polar Lander landed properly. No 'deep dull thud.' As for what's wrong with MPL, well, that's anyone's guess right now.
Also, the reference you made to the spacecraft that had the English/metric units fouled up had nothing to do with the software, or with the machine itself. That snafu was the result of engineering teams rushing the damned thing out the door, and not taking the time to double-check themselves. Interesting how that type of screw-up happens somewhat rarely in the aerotech industry, but had become the accepted norm in the software industry.
Like I said before, it's impossible to completely remove all bugs from anything engineered by Man. However, careful review of the design, and attention to discipline and detail can eliminate a large portion of potential errors. The fact that you are espousing the view that we shouldn't even try in the software industry sounds to me that you're just too bloody lazy and narrow-minded to even consider it. There is no excuse for not implementing a regimen of rigorous testing, no matter how complex a system is.
Though you would have us believe otherwise, software is not the most complex thing ever devise by Mankind, and software engineers are not the be-all-end-all of the engineering world.
And if you're curious as to what I consider as the most complex thing ever developed by Man, it's language.
The ability to filter noise and tune in on information that you want is exactly what democracy is all about.
Nope, sorry, afraid not. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Democracy is a governmental form based on the concept of a majority of voters choosing one possible action, choice, or law over another. Democracy can easily exist without free speech (however, I will agree that free speech adds greatly to the overall functionality of democracy.)
Furthermore, freedom of speech can exist in countries that do not use democracy as their form of government. You want an example? The United States of America. The US is *not* a democracy; it's a republic. Yet we have a legal protection of our free speech from the wiles and whims of the Congress (not, however, our ISPs).
Also, if the majority of a democratic society decides that they want to eliminate any and all forms of free speech, they can. The have that power. Democracy gives them that power. And the democracy can survive and flourish even in the abscence of free speech.
A lot of people that claim that democracy equals free speech have been misled, or have an incorrect understanding of the governmental form of democracy. That's not surprising; the US government - like any other government promoting its own cause - has produced a large amount a propoganda saying, in effect, "Democracy is the only good way. Everything else sucks. Democracy equals God, Mom, and Apple Pie. Democracy means you can pee in the bushes, and that bears crap in the woods."
In the same vein, we've also been told (in the US) that Communism is EVIL EVIL EVIL!!! What we forget is that Communism is, in and of itself, not evil; it's merely an economic style that was adapted (some would say "perverted") to a governmental form by the likes of Vladimir Illych Lenin, Mao Tse Dung, Ho Chi Mihn, and others. Communism, like Capitalism, is merely a "thing" that is neither good nor evil. It's how that thing is used that's good or evil.
Democracy (which, btw, I do personally hold as the greatest form of government there is) can also be corrupted. Just because it's a Democracy does not immediately make it a good thing.
Well, that went on a lot longer than I'd intended.
Airplanes are analog devices... they can survive within tolerances.
I'm not sure that I completely agree with you. It seems that you're saying that digital devices are incapable of having any degree of tolerance. That's not true. An example is the computer used on the Apollo spacecraft back in the late 60's - early 70's. These computers were incredibly reliable; you could beat the living dog-snot out of them and they'd still chug happily along. They were digital devices with software that had a high degree of tolerance.
Other spacecraft fit that mold as well: Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, the Shuttle, and Hubble, just to name a few. Each has computers with software that is very capable of tolerating various errors. For that matter, mainframes were (and are) far more robust that what we're stuck with today.
The problem isn't that software is inherently more complex than anything else built by Mankind (a rather arrogant presumption to begin with). The problem is that software engineers do not apply the same level of discipline and procedure into developing software than aeronautical engineers apply to aircraft and spacecraft.
The idea of "push it out the door as fast as we can" has become far too deeply entrenched in the software industry, coupled with the arrogant belief by many software engineers that their code is perfect. This is what needs to change.
I've worked in various software shops. There is no discipline. There are no standards of design and development, beyond the most basic ideas of source-code control. Invariably the process is "here's a neat idea! Let's implement it right now!" There's never any thought as to the ramifications of that "neat idea."
I understand that it is impossible to completely remove every single bug from a program, just as it is impossible to build an airplane that will never crash. But, there are a lot less airplanes falling out of the sky than there are software that doesn't crash. Why? Simple: airplanes are properly engineered, not thrown together in a mad rush to get the product to market.
Patent # 6,125,324: Use of Chewbacca in Legal Defense.
Whereas the patent applicant has developed a technique involving references to Chewbacca, Chewbacca's homeworld Kashyyyk, and the fact that it makes no sense, as a viable legal defense procedure in both jury and non-jury trials. The references to Chewbacca, et al., are used to confuse the jury / judge, and to render a verdict that favors any and all persons using the "Chewbacca Defense." The fact that it makes no sense makes no sense. The fact that jury trials and judges have existed for centuries in no way constitutes prior art, nor does the existance of the literary and film character Chewbacca since the 1970's. Any and all evidence of the 'South Park' television series episode where the Chewbacca Defense is portrayed are merely figments of your imagination, and do not constitute prior art. Gimme gimme gimme. Sue sue sue.
FreshMeat II : Electric Boogaloo
on
Freshmeat II
·
· Score: 2
Very nice! I like it! Scoop, you've outdone yourself on this one.
Remember the last time changes were made to FM? You'd have thought that Scoop had blasphemed Allah while in Iran, the way that people reacted so harshly. Well, to those of you that don't appreciate the hard work, and spiffy new features, get bent!
Hmmm... you're right. I hadn't thought of it in that manner.
I don't believe that Harris and Klebold planned the massacre solely because of being outcasts, or as a reaction to being harrassed. As we've seen from personal experiences shared during the Hellmouth series, many of us we're harrassed outcasts, yet none of us went postal like Harris and Klebold. There was something more that caused them to plan and perform the attack, another, deeper reason that we will never know, because it died with them.
Oh, give me a break! Where did you come up with this load of tripe? You had to dig pretty deep for this.
All of these "theories" about vampires representing repressed sexuality are complete bullshit. Vampires had nothing to do with sexuality until lurid pulp novelists of the likes of Anne Rice came along.
Vampires are mythological creatures created by many different cultures, using many different names, to explain various manners in which people mysteriously died. Chances are these people were dying of such ailments as the Bubonic Plague.
The vampire myth exists, in one form or another, in every culture on the planet. The Chinese have it, the Egyptians have it, the Greeks, Roman, French, Zulu, Aztec, Inca, and American Indians all have vampire myths. So, are you saying that they *all* existed to represent the repressed sexuality of Europe?
Oh, sorry, sexuality didn't become truely repressed until the rise of Puritanism, and even then didn't reach the point of mass hysteria and repression until the Victorian era. The Puritans were more obsessed with witches than with nookie. The vampire myth existed long before these groups / cultures arose.
As for your little comment about Columbine, let me say this: SHUT UP! You have no idea what you are talking about. Harris and Klebold weren't targeting geeks, or jocks, or preps, or snobs, or dorks, dweebs, goobs, nerds, etc., etc., etc. They targeted whomever was available. They shot at, or killed, anyone unfortunate enough to be in their way. They may have bragged to one another about who they were going to kill while they planned the massacre, but when the events actually transpired, they just shot at anyone they could, with the express purpose of killing. Not to make a social statement, not to oppress or eliminate geeks, just to kill. All of your analysis and theories about their motives don't change that simple fact.
Oh, and in the "cultural pantheon" (whatever the hell *that* means) geeks aren't the homosexuals. Homosexuals are the homosexuals. Geeks aren't even recognized as a separate sub-culture. So take your "geeks representing homosexuals" garbage and blow it out your ass.
Gee, how many times have we seen *that* witty comment? 200? 300? More?
Your originality is underwhelming.
Note to moderators: anyone who posts a comments saying "I've patented breathing/eating/pooping/drooling/whacking off/scratching my ass/being downright stupid, etc, etc, etc..." should be modded down to -100 'I Got My Ass Kicked On A Daily Basis By That One-Legged Blind Girl in Kindergarten', pummeled viciously, then drug out back and shot.
You have an interesting theory there, however, I have a few questions:
1.) How exactly would microwaving an asteroid help us?
2.) Where would you get a microwave oven that large?
3.) I was not aware that piss was alive, and if it is, why would I want to celebrate?
4.) Why do you want to blow an asteroid? Granted, it's a sexual deviancy that probably hasn't been tried before, but sheesh! What next? "Alt.pictures.erotica.blowjobs.asteroid"?
5.) Who's Nuff and why should we pay attention to what he said?
Seems to me that all this guy wanted to do was get arrested because antagonizing police officers has become the "cool" thing to do.
I've come to the conclusion that most protests are nothing more that a bunch of immature fools screaming and yelling about nothing, making false accusations of police brutality, trying to revive the now-defunct movements of the '60s.
In the '60s, we had reasons to protest: Viet-nam, racial and sexual inequality, sexual repression. While riots and violence did occur, they weren't planned. Now, it seems that protestors only know how to incite violence and vandalism, but don't know what they're protesting for.
Indeed, this fellow apparently didn't know what he was protesting; he failed to mention it anywhere in his somewhat childish diatribe.
He wasted so much with his directionless "protest": the cops' time, the taxpayers' money, his own validity as a journalist (if he even is a journalist), and my patience.
I hope that in the future, the SlashDot editors view submissions critically for valuable content, instead of the current trend of "Hey! Check it out, duuuuude! I think it's kinda, like, ya know, rad, dude!"
Slashdot Mirror
[puts pinky finger in corner of mouth]
I shall call it... Mini Station!
The DMV doesn't give these license tags out to anyone who requests them. To get a handicap license plate, you have to prove to the DMV that you have a limiting disability. However, the disability does not have to be visible; many diabilities that the DMV considers as limiting are "invisible"; you can't see the problem just by looking at the person.
The common example of this is advanced heart disease. Because the heart is not able to pump at capacity, the person's ability to function is limited. They tire easily, have difficulty walking, and are under constant threat of heart attacks.
Another example is back injury or disease. Scoleosis can leave its victim looking "normal", yet severely impacts their ability to function.
How about artificial legs? Have you taken a close look at prosthetic legs lately? They're pretty damn realistic looking, and the wearers can, and often do, get to the point were they can walk normally. But, I guess that since you can't tell the leg's false, and the wearer looks normal, they're just "lazy and inconsiderate."
Ever had a stroke? You know: blood clot lodges in an artery and causes damage to the brain. The victim is often left with partial paralysis, but they look "normal", and can function to a limited degree. The DMV considers this to be a limiting disability. How silly that DMV is, giving handicap license plates to these "lazy and inconsiderate" people.
How about Parkinson's Disease? Multiple Sclerosis? Cystic Fibrosis? Severe diabetes? Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis? Cancer? All diseases or conditions that can leave the victim with a limited ability to function. They're just "lazy and inconsiderate", right?
Yes, there are people that abuse the system; there always will be, but don't assume that, just because you can't see a disability, the disability doesn't exist.
Yeah, but at least then the Justice Department can file an antitrust lawsuit against the virus.
I've heard of people being very fond of their computers, but that's taking it a bit too far! :-)
Seriously, though, the USB ports on my work machine (Dell Precision 220) stopped working shortly after I plugged my Visor Edge's USB cradle in. At first I thought it was a problem with Win2K, so I reloaded the OS, but that didn't help. I did some tests, and found that the ports no longer send out any signal of any type. No power. Nothing. Win2K detects the ports, but I can't get them to function.
Since I don't use any other USB devices at work, and I have a serial cradle for my Visor, it hasn't been a big concern.
Any game with such gripping dialogue as:
"What you say?", "Someone set up us the bomb!!!", "You have no chance to survive make your time," and the unforgettable "All your base are belong to us" surely deserves to rank at the top of this list.
Why, I haven't seen dialogue delivery that compelling since my high school's rendition of Hamlet.
Probably not, given that pretty much every software license I've ever read (including Microsoft's) has a clause that says something to the effect of "use this software at your own risk. We do not warrant it to function properly, etc. etc. etc."
My personal favorite license warning comes with some Java VMs, and warns you against using Java for weapons, hospital equipment, and nuclear plants. Damn, and I so wanted to operate that nuclear reactor with my web browser.
I was always under the impression that war can only be declared by one sovereign nation on another. Since drugs/guns/sex/abortion/cellphones/video games/Pikachu/monkeys/dot.coms/dot.bombs/Dot the Robot Maid, etc., etc., etc. aren't sovereign nations, how can the United States government declare war on any of them?
Futhermore, doesn't it take an act of Congress to declare war? I think I read that somewhere in the Constitution of the United States. Article I Section 8, if I recall.
Finally, didn't the United States Civil War decide, once and for all, that the individual states cannot declare war? That they are, in fact, not sovereign nations in their own right, but merely self-governing provinces of the US Federal Govt.? If so, then how can a state declare war on anything?
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I'm honestly curious, and confused.
Ladies and Gents,
Think strategically. Let CT pass this "anti-violent video game" law. Encourage the CT governor to sign it into law. Rejoice when the law is passed; make sure that everyone knows which politician proposed this law. Do everything in your power to get his/her name heard in relation to this law. Make CT and this politician's names household words.
And then sic the ACLU on the state of Connecticut. File a massive class-action lawsuit against CT claiming abridgement of First Amendment protections. Argue that all video games are art, and, though some may be considered obscene, they are all protected by the Constitution. Get the lawsuit to drag out as long as possible. Make it so horribly expensive for Connecticut that the state eventually has to declare bankruptcy.
And when CT loses the lawsuit before the US Supreme Court (which has historically protected many forms of speech and art, even obscene), launch a massive media campaign pointing all of Connecticut's woes at this stupid law, and the politician that originally proposed it.
The end result is that video games are declared a protected form of art, and no other state will be able to pass a similar anti-violent video game law. Oh, and that stupid politician's career will be over. He'll be lucky to get a job at "The Snappy Snack Shack" frying Cheez-o-ritos.
If Larry Flynt could win First Amendment protection for Hustler magazine, I'm sure we could do the same for video games.
Hey! You just described a "rave!"
Why exactly was this assinine comment modded to 2? What crack-smoking moderator made the decision to mod this to 2?
Remember, only a fool makes a comment such as yours. A true master offers guidance and encouragement to an obvious newbie, in the hope that a new master shall one day emerge.
Understood. And my point isn't that you should go out and fix every system that exists. That's impossible. What I'm saying is that, instead of showering SlashDot, and the rest of the world, with more of this "I'm the King of the SysAdmins" ego crap, you should do what you can to help prevent these problems from propogating.
What will you do if one of your friends whom you've warned doesn't update his system? Are you going to insult him? Call him stupid? "Gee, I'm really sorry you got rooted. If you weren't so stupid, this wouldn't have happened." I'm sure he'll have tons of respect for you after that.
Sorry, that was getting a bit personal, which is not at all what I intend.
Anys, my point is that we, as a community, need to move away from the collective Holier-Than-Thou attitude that has become so deeply ingrained. The Linux movement is based strongly on the concept of a group of people helping each other to find the best solution to a problem. The solution slips out of our reach when we become a bunch of egomaniacal bastards.
If someone you know (that's any of you out there!) does get rooted by this exploit, don't thrash them for not updating their system. Instead, give them a hand. Help them recover from the damage. Offer suggestions on how to prevent these sorts of problems in the future. If they don't understand, teach them. You don't have to be Superman; if all you do is help one person, then that's one less computer that's at risk.
We're not at war with each other, gentlemen (and ladies!) We're at war with the little monkeyshits who take advantage of these exploits to do damage.
Ahh, that wonderful ego showing its head again. Yes, all sysadmins wish they could be as perfect as you.
Lose the attitudes, people. Mistakes are made, patches are overlooked. It happens. It will continue to happen. There's nothing that can be done about it. And your arrogance isn't doing the rest of the world any good.
Perhaps, instead of insulting and complaining, you should try actually helping. You know a sysadmin that's a little weak in some areas? Give 'em a hand. Help 'em out. Be proactive.
You wonder why so many non-techies view us as raving lunatics, or arrogant shits. This is why. All we ever seem to do is foam at the mouth about how everything not Linux is evil, and that Open Source is the One True Way. And then we strut around like pumped-up little martinets, so convinced of our own greatness, and the mistaken belief that we are infallible.
Anyone here who makes the claim that they have never made a mistake configuring a server has either never configured a server, or is lying through their teeth.
But then, I suppose that for us to admit that we have screwed up from time to time would then force us to admit that we're not nearly as perfect as we like to think, and that, just perhaps, those egos and attitudes we've stroked so hard aren't worth a damn.
I think it has to do with the ports that Apache and Sendmail bind to when they start. Since all ports below 1024 are privledged, only root processes can bind to them. So, I assume that means that's the reason these daemons have to run as root.
Is there a way that you can give a UID rights to bind to specific ports, even if the port's below the 1024 range? If so, then you could theoretically make a user named WWW that can only bind to ports 80 and 443 (SSL, right?) and then run Apache using the UID.
Can this be done?
Actually, I believe evidence has come to light that indicates the Mars Polar Lander landed properly. No 'deep dull thud.' As for what's wrong with MPL, well, that's anyone's guess right now.
Also, the reference you made to the spacecraft that had the English/metric units fouled up had nothing to do with the software, or with the machine itself. That snafu was the result of engineering teams rushing the damned thing out the door, and not taking the time to double-check themselves. Interesting how that type of screw-up happens somewhat rarely in the aerotech industry, but had become the accepted norm in the software industry.
Like I said before, it's impossible to completely remove all bugs from anything engineered by Man. However, careful review of the design, and attention to discipline and detail can eliminate a large portion of potential errors. The fact that you are espousing the view that we shouldn't even try in the software industry sounds to me that you're just too bloody lazy and narrow-minded to even consider it. There is no excuse for not implementing a regimen of rigorous testing, no matter how complex a system is.
Though you would have us believe otherwise, software is not the most complex thing ever devise by Mankind, and software engineers are not the be-all-end-all of the engineering world.
And if you're curious as to what I consider as the most complex thing ever developed by Man, it's language.
Nope, sorry, afraid not. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Democracy is a governmental form based on the concept of a majority of voters choosing one possible action, choice, or law over another. Democracy can easily exist without free speech (however, I will agree that free speech adds greatly to the overall functionality of democracy.)
Furthermore, freedom of speech can exist in countries that do not use democracy as their form of government. You want an example? The United States of America. The US is *not* a democracy; it's a republic. Yet we have a legal protection of our free speech from the wiles and whims of the Congress (not, however, our ISPs).
Also, if the majority of a democratic society decides that they want to eliminate any and all forms of free speech, they can. The have that power. Democracy gives them that power. And the democracy can survive and flourish even in the abscence of free speech.
A lot of people that claim that democracy equals free speech have been misled, or have an incorrect understanding of the governmental form of democracy. That's not surprising; the US government - like any other government promoting its own cause - has produced a large amount a propoganda saying, in effect, "Democracy is the only good way. Everything else sucks. Democracy equals God, Mom, and Apple Pie. Democracy means you can pee in the bushes, and that bears crap in the woods."
In the same vein, we've also been told (in the US) that Communism is EVIL EVIL EVIL!!! What we forget is that Communism is, in and of itself, not evil; it's merely an economic style that was adapted (some would say "perverted") to a governmental form by the likes of Vladimir Illych Lenin, Mao Tse Dung, Ho Chi Mihn, and others. Communism, like Capitalism, is merely a "thing" that is neither good nor evil. It's how that thing is used that's good or evil. Democracy (which, btw, I do personally hold as the greatest form of government there is) can also be corrupted. Just because it's a Democracy does not immediately make it a good thing.
Well, that went on a lot longer than I'd intended.
I'm not sure that I completely agree with you. It seems that you're saying that digital devices are incapable of having any degree of tolerance. That's not true. An example is the computer used on the Apollo spacecraft back in the late 60's - early 70's. These computers were incredibly reliable; you could beat the living dog-snot out of them and they'd still chug happily along. They were digital devices with software that had a high degree of tolerance.
Other spacecraft fit that mold as well: Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, the Shuttle, and Hubble, just to name a few. Each has computers with software that is very capable of tolerating various errors. For that matter, mainframes were (and are) far more robust that what we're stuck with today.
The problem isn't that software is inherently more complex than anything else built by Mankind (a rather arrogant presumption to begin with). The problem is that software engineers do not apply the same level of discipline and procedure into developing software than aeronautical engineers apply to aircraft and spacecraft.
The idea of "push it out the door as fast as we can" has become far too deeply entrenched in the software industry, coupled with the arrogant belief by many software engineers that their code is perfect. This is what needs to change.
I've worked in various software shops. There is no discipline. There are no standards of design and development, beyond the most basic ideas of source-code control. Invariably the process is "here's a neat idea! Let's implement it right now!" There's never any thought as to the ramifications of that "neat idea."
I understand that it is impossible to completely remove every single bug from a program, just as it is impossible to build an airplane that will never crash. But, there are a lot less airplanes falling out of the sky than there are software that doesn't crash. Why? Simple: airplanes are properly engineered, not thrown together in a mad rush to get the product to market.
Heh heh! I can see it now:
Patent # 6,125,324: Use of Chewbacca in Legal Defense.
Whereas the patent applicant has developed a technique involving references to Chewbacca, Chewbacca's homeworld Kashyyyk, and the fact that it makes no sense, as a viable legal defense procedure in both jury and non-jury trials. The references to Chewbacca, et al., are used to confuse the jury / judge, and to render a verdict that favors any and all persons using the "Chewbacca Defense." The fact that it makes no sense makes no sense. The fact that jury trials and judges have existed for centuries in no way constitutes prior art, nor does the existance of the literary and film character Chewbacca since the 1970's. Any and all evidence of the 'South Park' television series episode where the Chewbacca Defense is portrayed are merely figments of your imagination, and do not constitute prior art. Gimme gimme gimme. Sue sue sue.
Very nice! I like it! Scoop, you've outdone yourself on this one.
Remember the last time changes were made to FM? You'd have thought that Scoop had blasphemed Allah while in Iran, the way that people reacted so harshly. Well, to those of you that don't appreciate the hard work, and spiffy new features, get bent!
Well done, nice job, pip pip cheerio.
Hmmm... you're right. I hadn't thought of it in that manner.
I don't believe that Harris and Klebold planned the massacre solely because of being outcasts, or as a reaction to being harrassed. As we've seen from personal experiences shared during the Hellmouth series, many of us we're harrassed outcasts, yet none of us went postal like Harris and Klebold. There was something more that caused them to plan and perform the attack, another, deeper reason that we will never know, because it died with them.
Oh, give me a break! Where did you come up with this load of tripe? You had to dig pretty deep for this.
All of these "theories" about vampires representing repressed sexuality are complete bullshit. Vampires had nothing to do with sexuality until lurid pulp novelists of the likes of Anne Rice came along.
Vampires are mythological creatures created by many different cultures, using many different names, to explain various manners in which people mysteriously died. Chances are these people were dying of such ailments as the Bubonic Plague.
The vampire myth exists, in one form or another, in every culture on the planet. The Chinese have it, the Egyptians have it, the Greeks, Roman, French, Zulu, Aztec, Inca, and American Indians all have vampire myths. So, are you saying that they *all* existed to represent the repressed sexuality of Europe?
Oh, sorry, sexuality didn't become truely repressed until the rise of Puritanism, and even then didn't reach the point of mass hysteria and repression until the Victorian era. The Puritans were more obsessed with witches than with nookie. The vampire myth existed long before these groups / cultures arose.
As for your little comment about Columbine, let me say this: SHUT UP! You have no idea what you are talking about. Harris and Klebold weren't targeting geeks, or jocks, or preps, or snobs, or dorks, dweebs, goobs, nerds, etc., etc., etc. They targeted whomever was available. They shot at, or killed, anyone unfortunate enough to be in their way. They may have bragged to one another about who they were going to kill while they planned the massacre, but when the events actually transpired, they just shot at anyone they could, with the express purpose of killing. Not to make a social statement, not to oppress or eliminate geeks, just to kill. All of your analysis and theories about their motives don't change that simple fact.
Oh, and in the "cultural pantheon" (whatever the hell *that* means) geeks aren't the homosexuals. Homosexuals are the homosexuals. Geeks aren't even recognized as a separate sub-culture. So take your "geeks representing homosexuals" garbage and blow it out your ass.
Gee, how many times have we seen *that* witty comment? 200? 300? More?
Your originality is underwhelming.
Note to moderators: anyone who posts a comments saying "I've patented breathing/eating/pooping/drooling/whacking off/scratching my ass/being downright stupid, etc, etc, etc..." should be modded down to -100 'I Got My Ass Kicked On A Daily Basis By That One-Legged Blind Girl in Kindergarten', pummeled viciously, then drug out back and shot.
Yeah, and it really sucks when they get a segfault. The HST starts taking pictures of George W. Bush's naked butt!
Ugh!
Uhhh... how is something *not* colliding with the Earth going to kill a lot of people?
You have an interesting theory there, however, I have a few questions:
1.) How exactly would microwaving an asteroid help us?
2.) Where would you get a microwave oven that large?
3.) I was not aware that piss was alive, and if it is, why would I want to celebrate?
4.) Why do you want to blow an asteroid? Granted, it's a sexual deviancy that probably hasn't been tried before, but sheesh! What next? "Alt.pictures.erotica.blowjobs.asteroid"?
5.) Who's Nuff and why should we pay attention to what he said?
Seems to me that all this guy wanted to do was get arrested because antagonizing police officers has become the "cool" thing to do.
I've come to the conclusion that most protests are nothing more that a bunch of immature fools screaming and yelling about nothing, making false accusations of police brutality, trying to revive the now-defunct movements of the '60s.
In the '60s, we had reasons to protest: Viet-nam, racial and sexual inequality, sexual repression. While riots and violence did occur, they weren't planned. Now, it seems that protestors only know how to incite violence and vandalism, but don't know what they're protesting for.
Indeed, this fellow apparently didn't know what he was protesting; he failed to mention it anywhere in his somewhat childish diatribe.
He wasted so much with his directionless "protest": the cops' time, the taxpayers' money, his own validity as a journalist (if he even is a journalist), and my patience.
I hope that in the future, the SlashDot editors view submissions critically for valuable content, instead of the current trend of "Hey! Check it out, duuuuude! I think it's kinda, like, ya know, rad, dude!"