---------- so you'll need people with actual knowledge of the system as sysadmins.
Sorry to break it to you, but Wizards and GUI tools don't obviate the need for knowledge. If anything, Windows requires more experience to manage well, and it keeps changing. Seems like you have fallen prey to Microsoft marketing claims. -----------
No no no no. This is where you are wrong. Any dumb butt 'administrator' can handle a Windows server due to the wizards and GUI's. The same 'administrators' would be dead in the water on a Linux/Unix box. Can they administer them well? Not at all, but they can make the appearance of doing something with the system. Serious, throw a $30k/yr 19 year old 'admin' at a windows machine and you have a _mostly_ working network. Yes you will have problems when virii or hacks come out. Throw that same admin at a Linux/Unix system and you have nothing. That is why some companies still use the inferior server OS.
As far as Linux on the desktop... Well to be honest I think it would work wonderfully, under certain conditions. Those conditions are mostly corporate wageslaves; the type of people who only do a few set things with their computers and can be expected to do very little outside of it would work wonderfully, and with less downtime, on a Linux desktop. First level helpdesk support does what? Enters tickets into a system, e-mail, connects a corporate website to read the ever-hated script. They do very little outside of this. Why do they need a crash-prone windows machine to fulfill those computing needs?
People who are less apt to be able to use a Linux desktops are those not so tightly controlled yet not technically apt, or those who's skills lie in proprietary software not supported on a Linux system (i.e. those Photoshop ppl). Also, people who MUST have the nifty new toys NOW (CEO's:P ) would be better off with a Windows machine, as currently very few hardware suppliers ship Linux drivers in the box.
While my other reply was marked 'flamebait' (riiiight) I'll go ahead and reply to this one as well.
>All tools that we manufacture are designed and engineered to meet a purpose or a small range of purposes.
Change 'purpose' to 'use' and I'll agree with you. There is a important difference between the words in my vocabulary. A tool can very well have an intended use, but it cannot have an intended purpose.
>Guns aren't purposed and marketed by society to drink beer from, or to eat, or to use to undo phillips head screws.
>It's not very practical as a necktie, although you could attach it to one.
While I'll disagree jokingly about the first sentence (trust me, you WILL remove a phillips head screw, depending on what it is mounted in), I will agree with the points.
>It's designed and marketed to launch metal bullets at high speed.
A firearm is designed to be a slug-thrower. It is generally marketed to be a tool to allow its owner/user to present deadly force regardless of the physical size of the user/owner. However, the user, and only the user, decides its purpose. It is no different than any other inanimate object. I've got a bunch of those AOL disks that I fill the purpose of protecting my wood table from condensation (i.e. drink coasters). Is that what they were designed or marketed for? No. Is that their purpose? Yes, since I, as the user, have decided that.
>Now, if you say that a gun has no purpose; you are likening it to a stone. A shotgun can be left loaded and unattended and triggered by a curious dog; no living, thinking human involved.
A gun has no more purpose than a stone. A gun is capable of no more rational thought than a stone. Someone can leave a stone on top of a building and when some bird lands on it and causes it to fall off, serious injuring someone, the fault lies in the same place as in your example: The person who left it in that situation. Neither a firearm nor a stone can leave itself in a potentially deadly situation, only a person can.
>The bloody things are dangerous and for as long as firearms are regarded as less dangerous and more suitable in the bedroom than pot, I will continue to regard the leaders of the US as having a substantial discord with reality.
A firearm is not dangerous, a stone is not dangerous, a computer is not dangerous (woot, back on topic!). Only the negligence of the user/owner can leave it in a dangerous situation. If you honestly think that one inanimate object is inherently more dangerous than another, by simply existing rather than the intentions of its owner, then you really do need to snap back into reality. Having a gun in my bedroom does nothing; smoking pot in my bedroom screws up my decision-making capabilities. Admittedly, so do alcohol and other over-the-counter drugs when taken. A firearm just sits there.
Honestly, which is more dangerous? An inanimate object, or a drug that alters my perception of reality?
Again I must contend that an inanimate object has no decision-making capability, and therefore cannot have a purpose. The object cannot act on it's own, it can only do what it's user directs.
Therefore, a user of a tool decides it's purpose, not the tool itself. A carpenter's purpose for a hammer is to have a handy tool to drive nails into boards. The designer of the display downstairs definitely intended the purpose of the hammer there to remain inanimate on display. A child's purpose for a hammer may be to smash the heck out of whatever he has on had at the moment. A murder's purpose for a hammer is a nifty device to inflict damage to a human body.
Or are you one of those anti-gun nuts who somehow rationalize that firearms are somehow created with intelligence, and instinctively seek to kill people?
A firearm is an inanimate tool. No more, no less. It has no purpose; it can only be given one by the directive of a living, thinking human. To say otherwise is to admit you have a substantial discord with reality.
----- If guns were banned in the US, the number of homicides would drop substantially. Those facts you can't argue ------
So that's why homicides increased in both UK and Australia after firearms were banned? In fact, if I remember correctly in, Australia FIREARM homicides increased after the ban.
You're right, you can't argue the facts at all.
But what you are forgetting is that the 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with crime or protection from criminals.
Pick up a history book some time. I highly suggest this if you happen to be a US citizen. The United States of America came into being after they used force to overthrow a goverment they found unjust. The founders of our new goverment had the foresight to realize that we just might have to do the same to the goverment they were now creating. The 2nd Ammendment was the guarentee that we would have the tools.
Our goverment is a system of checks and balances. The ultimate of the checks are the citizens themselves. The citizens cannot be a check if they do not have the power to overthrow the goverment.
There is no 'permissions' on the right click menu for regedit (unless this is an XP thing, I havn't used XP extensively). Are you perhaps refering to right-click on the install directory and then going to permissions and adding [machine|domain]/user and giving them full rights? I'll give that a try, as I pretty much only boot up W2K for games, but it still makes me feel slimy to have to run as root. Also, it makes it easier on me when my roommates kid wants to borrow my box to play games vs. his dad;)
Yes, making chainmail will wear off your fingerprints (if done enough). Masons are also commonly without prints. Any work that requires a lot of fingertip friction that doesn't allow for the wearing of gloves will partially or totally wear away your prints.
Notice for those on the lam: From what I've heard, your prints will grow back the same as they were before removal... so YMMV
Highly intersting is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html where GNU themselves state that the Original BSD license is "too restrictive" as it requires verbatium copying of "too many" advertising clauses.... and then make the GFDL require the same type of crap.
I had a situation similar to this. I had a lan party and we pretty much slamed my connection every minute of the 3 day weekend. It was less a gaming party than a "let's download every distro of Linux we can find and install it on someone's box" party. A few hundred GB of bandwith later....
I got a call the Monday after the weekend from my ISP. They stated that I had exceded my bandwith cap and that I was going to have to pay for the extra bandwith at some rate I don't remember. Convo went something like this:
ISP: "You do understand that there are limits on the bandwith that you can use, don't you?" Me: "Well, I did sign up for the unlimited plan that I saw advertised." ISP: "If you would of read the TOS you would understand that there is a download limit of 50GB per month." Me: "Look, I'll nip this in the bud. Do you understand class action false advertising lawsuit?"
A few supervisors later, I learned that I won't be charged for the bandwith, but they would no longer be having me for a customer.
Why do you need documentation when you have the source?
The source is free.
So, basically, you're telling me that because you can't understand source code, or perhaps you can but are too lazy to read it and perfer a summary, that your need of summary information is a 'hidden cost' while you have full, complete, and total documention provided to you via the GPL?
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, emphisis added by me:
**No state shall, without the consent of Congress**, lay any duty of tonnage, ***keep troops***, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
If my argument isn't obvious, I'll shed some light for you. If states are not allowed to keep troops without consent of Congress, how can the right for state militias to bear arms NOT be infringed? Ergo, the 2nd Amendment CANNOT apply to state militias, and must apply to civilian militia made up of the citizens of the United States.
Really it depends on what kind of child porn we are talking about. Belive it or not there is more than one kind:
Type A) A lewd picture of an 8 year old usually engaged in some sexual activity or pose. This is the kind that 99.9% of us can agree is bad/wrong/whatever.
Type B) Two 16 or 17 year olds boffing eachother in some European country where said boffing and the publication thereof is legal.... All until it's on your harddrive in America, where pictures of nude minors is a crime. I, personally, don't have a problem with this kind of 'child porn.'
Type C) Virtual child porn, either by hentai or entirely digitally created images. I'll leave you to your own decisions on if this is bad or wrong.
So, which form of child porn do you have a problem with? Some of the above, all of the above?
You are misunderstanding the law. Let's use (as an example) the manufacturers Slinky Co. and Time Magazine, as well as the telemarking companies Sleeze Inc. and 12AMCalls.
You get a call from Sleeze Inc. representing Slinky Co. to offer you an unpresendented deal on the new Cobolt Steel Slinky! After hearing a small amount of drivel, you say "Place me on your do not call list," get conformation from the telemarketer, and hang up. Tomorrow 12AMCalls rings you about a Slinky Co's new Cobolt Steel Slinky! You are miffed, but talk to the telemarkter and find out he doesn't work for Sleeze Inc. This is perfectly valid, so you ask him to place you on the do not call list. Later that day a telemarketer calls you about a subscription to Time Magazine. You ask for the company name and to be placed on the do not call list. The telemarketer says he works for Sleeze Inc. You smile, ask for a manager, explain to the manager that you were placed on the do not call list yesterday, and ask where you can send your request for your $500.
That is how the law works. If you are placed on a 'do not call' list, the telmarketing company cannot call you, not matter who is employing thier services. The mistake most people make is that they ask the company to 'take me of your list' which is not the same as being placed on the 'do not call' list. They will gladly take you off the list from Slinky Co. that they got today, but when Time sends them a list tomorrow and your name is on it, they are free to call you.
Now what is really annoying me are automated dialers and the hangup calls I get from telemarkters. I don't rush to the phone to pick it up so I get around 3-4 of these a day. I'm seriousally considering calling the operator after each call and reporting it as phone herassment, and am not sure what effect that would have.
***Furthermore, according to the CPHV analysis, violent crime actually rose in 12 of 29 states (41%) which liberalized their CCW laws over the five years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which did not change their CCW laws. ***
I'm not going to trust anyone who thinks we have 51 states (29 + 22). There is something funky going on with thier numbers.
1. Ban the importation or manufacture of illegal narcotics except by those used by licensened pharmacutical companies.
2. Make private ownership or use of illegal narcotics a felony. Fuck the amnesty. Destroy or conviscate any illegal narcotics found in private hands. Pay people a bonus for being a narc.
3. Arrest anyone with illegal narcotics who's got any and isn't a licensed distrubituor.
Yep.. that works real fucking well. I can point out a half dozen in my neighborhood who deal drugs.
Laugh if you want, but that actually happened (or I'm remembering some urban legand). Story goes that a certian someone added code a a login utility (Unix, Linux? I don't remember all the details unfortuantly) so that he could log into a machine with root privlages even if he didn't have an account on the machine. He then modified the compiler to recognize if it was compiling the login program to automatically re-inject the code into the program. He then also modified the compiler to recoginize if it was compiling the compiler and again re-inject the malacious code.
One hell of a hack job. I'd give a link, but a quick google of what I remember isn't turning up anything. Anyone else who remembers this throw a link (or prove this an urban legand)? I think it was some distro of Linux but I'm not 100% sure.
"Fortunately for me, the penal code is not copyrighted"
I have to laugh. Belive it or not, some laws ARE copyrighted. There's an old slashdot article (I'm to lazy to search) about a guy who got busted for puting CA's building codes on the net.
Um.. I am gonna look that up now. I'm insanely curious how it all ended (Can't get that info from slashdot, but I can get enough info to know what to search for).
Slashdot Mirror
----------
:P ) would be better off with a Windows machine, as currently very few hardware suppliers ship Linux drivers in the box.
so you'll need people with actual knowledge of the system as sysadmins.
Sorry to break it to you, but Wizards and GUI tools don't obviate the need for knowledge. If anything, Windows requires more experience to manage well, and it keeps changing. Seems like you have fallen prey to Microsoft marketing claims.
-----------
No no no no. This is where you are wrong. Any dumb butt 'administrator' can handle a Windows server due to the wizards and GUI's. The same 'administrators' would be dead in the water on a Linux/Unix box. Can they administer them well? Not at all, but they can make the appearance of doing something with the system. Serious, throw a $30k/yr 19 year old 'admin' at a windows machine and you have a _mostly_ working network. Yes you will have problems when virii or hacks come out. Throw that same admin at a Linux/Unix system and you have nothing. That is why some companies still use the inferior server OS.
As far as Linux on the desktop... Well to be honest I think it would work wonderfully, under certain conditions. Those conditions are mostly corporate wageslaves; the type of people who only do a few set things with their computers and can be expected to do very little outside of it would work wonderfully, and with less downtime, on a Linux desktop. First level helpdesk support does what? Enters tickets into a system, e-mail, connects a corporate website to read the ever-hated script. They do very little outside of this. Why do they need a crash-prone windows machine to fulfill those computing needs?
People who are less apt to be able to use a Linux desktops are those not so tightly controlled yet not technically apt, or those who's skills lie in proprietary software not supported on a Linux system (i.e. those Photoshop ppl). Also, people who MUST have the nifty new toys NOW (CEO's
--Demonspawn
While my other reply was marked 'flamebait' (riiiight) I'll go ahead and reply to this one as well.
>All tools that we manufacture are designed and engineered to meet a purpose or a small range of purposes.
Change 'purpose' to 'use' and I'll agree with you. There is a important difference between the words in my vocabulary. A tool can very well have an intended use, but it cannot have an intended purpose.
>Guns aren't purposed and marketed by society to drink beer from, or to eat, or to use to undo phillips head screws.
>It's not very practical as a necktie, although you could attach it to one.
While I'll disagree jokingly about the first sentence (trust me, you WILL remove a phillips head screw, depending on what it is mounted in), I will agree with the points.
>It's designed and marketed to launch metal bullets at high speed.
A firearm is designed to be a slug-thrower. It is generally marketed to be a tool to allow its owner/user to present deadly force regardless of the physical size of the user/owner. However, the user, and only the user, decides its purpose. It is no different than any other inanimate object. I've got a bunch of those AOL disks that I fill the purpose of protecting my wood table from condensation (i.e. drink coasters). Is that what they were designed or marketed for? No. Is that their purpose? Yes, since I, as the user, have decided that.
>Now, if you say that a gun has no purpose; you are likening it to a stone. A shotgun can be left loaded and unattended and triggered by a curious dog; no living, thinking human involved.
A gun has no more purpose than a stone. A gun is capable of no more rational thought than a stone. Someone can leave a stone on top of a building and when some bird lands on it and causes it to fall off, serious injuring someone, the fault lies in the same place as in your example: The person who left it in that situation. Neither a firearm nor a stone can leave itself in a potentially deadly situation, only a person can.
>The bloody things are dangerous and for as long as firearms are regarded as less dangerous and more suitable in the bedroom than pot, I will continue to regard the leaders of the US as having a substantial discord with reality.
A firearm is not dangerous, a stone is not dangerous, a computer is not dangerous (woot, back on topic!). Only the negligence of the user/owner can leave it in a dangerous situation. If you honestly think that one inanimate object is inherently more dangerous than another, by simply existing rather than the intentions of its owner, then you really do need to snap back into reality. Having a gun in my bedroom does nothing; smoking pot in my bedroom screws up my decision-making capabilities. Admittedly, so do alcohol and other over-the-counter drugs when taken. A firearm just sits there.
Honestly, which is more dangerous? An inanimate object, or a drug that alters my perception of reality?
--Demonspawn
Again I must contend that an inanimate object has no decision-making capability, and therefore cannot have a purpose. The object cannot act on it's own, it can only do what it's user directs.
Therefore, a user of a tool decides it's purpose, not the tool itself. A carpenter's purpose for a hammer is to have a handy tool to drive nails into boards. The designer of the display downstairs definitely intended the purpose of the hammer there to remain inanimate on display. A child's purpose for a hammer may be to smash the heck out of whatever he has on had at the moment. A murder's purpose for a hammer is a nifty device to inflict damage to a human body.
Or are you one of those anti-gun nuts who somehow rationalize that firearms are somehow created with intelligence, and instinctively seek to kill people?
--Demonspawn
A reconnect fee would never work:
1) pay $200 to reconnect to "ISP that I'm pissed off at"
2) pay normal instal fees to connect to a new ISP (usually free or waved)
Simple way to lose customer base.
--Demonspawn
A firearm is an inanimate tool. No more, no less. It has no purpose; it can only be given one by the directive of a living, thinking human. To say otherwise is to admit you have a substantial discord with reality.
--Demonspawn
Are you convergent?
-----
If guns were banned in the US, the number of homicides would drop substantially. Those facts you can't argue
------
So that's why homicides increased in both UK and Australia after firearms were banned? In fact, if I remember correctly in, Australia FIREARM homicides increased after the ban.
You're right, you can't argue the facts at all.
But what you are forgetting is that the 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with crime or protection from criminals.
Pick up a history book some time. I highly suggest this if you happen to be a US citizen. The United States of America came into being after they used force to overthrow a goverment they found unjust. The founders of our new goverment had the foresight to realize that we just might have to do the same to the goverment they were now creating. The 2nd Ammendment was the guarentee that we would have the tools.
Our goverment is a system of checks and balances. The ultimate of the checks are the citizens themselves. The citizens cannot be a check if they do not have the power to overthrow the goverment.
--Demonspawn
I don't understand how this is a Constitutional issue at all. The First Ammendment gives you a right to speak; it does not force me to listen to you.
--Demonspawn
/* Licensed under GPL-2 */ /* Code Fixed by Demonspawn Armageddon, first author was an Anonymous Coward */
/* #include "exploit.h" --- this is not needed */
/* doExploit(); // Most insecure "Hello World" program ever, but not anymore thanks to OSS peer review */
#include
using namespace std;
int main() {
cout "Hello World\n";
return 0;
}
Eh?
;)
There is no 'permissions' on the right click menu for regedit (unless this is an XP thing, I havn't used XP extensively). Are you perhaps refering to right-click on the install directory and then going to permissions and adding [machine|domain]/user and giving them full rights? I'll give that a try, as I pretty much only boot up W2K for games, but it still makes me feel slimy to have to run as root. Also, it makes it easier on me when my roommates kid wants to borrow my box to play games vs. his dad
--Demonspawn
Yes, making chainmail will wear off your fingerprints (if done enough). Masons are also commonly without prints. Any work that requires a lot of fingertip friction that doesn't allow for the wearing of gloves will partially or totally wear away your prints.
Notice for those on the lam: From what I've heard, your prints will grow back the same as they were before removal... so YMMV
--Demonspawn
Highly intersting is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html where GNU themselves state that the Original BSD license is "too restrictive" as it requires verbatium copying of "too many" advertising clauses.... and then make the GFDL require the same type of crap.
--Demonspawn
I had a situation similar to this. I had a lan party and we pretty much slamed my connection every minute of the 3 day weekend. It was less a gaming party than a "let's download every distro of Linux we can find and install it on someone's box" party. A few hundred GB of bandwith later....
I got a call the Monday after the weekend from my ISP. They stated that I had exceded my bandwith cap and that I was going to have to pay for the extra bandwith at some rate I don't remember. Convo went something like this:
ISP: "You do understand that there are limits on the bandwith that you can use, don't you?"
Me: "Well, I did sign up for the unlimited plan that I saw advertised."
ISP: "If you would of read the TOS you would understand that there is a download limit of 50GB per month."
Me: "Look, I'll nip this in the bud. Do you understand class action false advertising lawsuit?"
A few supervisors later, I learned that I won't be charged for the bandwith, but they would no longer be having me for a customer.
--Demonspawn
What type of KVM do you have? My friend has a KVM that has the same problem, altho I cannot remember what brand/model it is offhand.
--Demonspawn
*cough*DIVX*cough*
I'd call that a fork, and one that thankfully died.
--Demonspawn
Why do you need documentation when you have the source?
The source is free.
So, basically, you're telling me that because you can't understand source code, or perhaps you can but are too lazy to read it and perfer a summary, that your need of summary information is a 'hidden cost' while you have full, complete, and total documention provided to you via the GPL?
--Demonspawn
6 time zones.
Everyone forgets Alaska and Hawaii.
--Demonspawn
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, emphisis added by me:
**No state shall, without the consent of Congress**, lay any duty of tonnage, ***keep troops***, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
If my argument isn't obvious, I'll shed some light for you. If states are not allowed to keep troops without consent of Congress, how can the right for state militias to bear arms NOT be infringed? Ergo, the 2nd Amendment CANNOT apply to state militias, and must apply to civilian militia made up of the citizens of the United States.
--Demonspawn
I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess its because over in Europe they teach kids about methods of birth control other than 'don't have sex'
--Demonspawn
Really it depends on what kind of child porn we are talking about. Belive it or not there is more than one kind:
Type A) A lewd picture of an 8 year old usually engaged in some sexual activity or pose. This is the kind that 99.9% of us can agree is bad/wrong/whatever.
Type B) Two 16 or 17 year olds boffing eachother in some European country where said boffing and the publication thereof is legal.... All until it's on your harddrive in America, where pictures of nude minors is a crime. I, personally, don't have a problem with this kind of 'child porn.'
Type C) Virtual child porn, either by hentai or entirely digitally created images. I'll leave you to your own decisions on if this is bad or wrong.
So, which form of child porn do you have a problem with? Some of the above, all of the above?
--Demonspawn
You are misunderstanding the law. Let's use (as an example) the manufacturers Slinky Co. and Time Magazine, as well as the telemarking companies Sleeze Inc. and 12AMCalls.
You get a call from Sleeze Inc. representing Slinky Co. to offer you an unpresendented deal on the new Cobolt Steel Slinky! After hearing a small amount of drivel, you say "Place me on your do not call list," get conformation from the telemarketer, and hang up. Tomorrow 12AMCalls rings you about a Slinky Co's new Cobolt Steel Slinky! You are miffed, but talk to the telemarkter and find out he doesn't work for Sleeze Inc. This is perfectly valid, so you ask him to place you on the do not call list. Later that day a telemarketer calls you about a subscription to Time Magazine. You ask for the company name and to be placed on the do not call list. The telemarketer says he works for Sleeze Inc. You smile, ask for a manager, explain to the manager that you were placed on the do not call list yesterday, and ask where you can send your request for your $500.
That is how the law works. If you are placed on a 'do not call' list, the telmarketing company cannot call you, not matter who is employing thier services. The mistake most people make is that they ask the company to 'take me of your list' which is not the same as being placed on the 'do not call' list. They will gladly take you off the list from Slinky Co. that they got today, but when Time sends them a list tomorrow and your name is on it, they are free to call you.
Now what is really annoying me are automated dialers and the hangup calls I get from telemarkters. I don't rush to the phone to pick it up so I get around 3-4 of these a day. I'm seriousally considering calling the operator after each call and reporting it as phone herassment, and am not sure what effect that would have.
--Demonspawn
From the link you mentioned:
***Furthermore, according to the CPHV analysis, violent crime actually rose in 12 of 29 states (41%) which liberalized their CCW laws over the five years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which did not change their CCW laws. ***
I'm not going to trust anyone who thinks we have 51 states (29 + 22). There is something funky going on with thier numbers.
--Demonspawn
1. Ban the importation or manufacture of illegal narcotics except by those used by licensened pharmacutical companies.
2. Make private ownership or use of illegal narcotics a felony. Fuck the amnesty. Destroy or conviscate any illegal narcotics found in private hands. Pay people a bonus for being a narc.
3. Arrest anyone with illegal narcotics who's got any and isn't a licensed distrubituor.
Yep.. that works real fucking well. I can point out a half dozen in my neighborhood who deal drugs.
--Demonspawn
Laugh if you want, but that actually happened (or I'm remembering some urban legand). Story goes that a certian someone added code a a login utility (Unix, Linux? I don't remember all the details unfortuantly) so that he could log into a machine with root privlages even if he didn't have an account on the machine. He then modified the compiler to recognize if it was compiling the login program to automatically re-inject the code into the program. He then also modified the compiler to recoginize if it was compiling the compiler and again re-inject the malacious code.
One hell of a hack job. I'd give a link, but a quick google of what I remember isn't turning up anything. Anyone else who remembers this throw a link (or prove this an urban legand)? I think it was some distro of Linux but I'm not 100% sure.
--Demonspawn
"Fortunately for me, the penal code is not copyrighted"
I have to laugh. Belive it or not, some laws ARE copyrighted. There's an old slashdot article (I'm to lazy to search) about a guy who got busted for puting CA's building codes on the net.
Um.. I am gonna look that up now. I'm insanely curious how it all ended (Can't get that info from slashdot, but I can get enough info to know what to search for).
--Demonspawn