This is an old naval tradition. Furthermore, an officer on board with the rank of Captain who is *not* in command of the ship will be addressed as "Commodore", as there can only be one captain of the ship (an army or marine captain will be addressed as "Major").
UAC is annoying, but it's doing what we said we wanted windows to do, which is to implement application security.
UAC isn't implementing application security. It's giving Microsoft a way to blame the user for his security breaches, because he either OK'd the access (as the interface trains you to automatically click OK on all the myriad dialog boxes) or because he disabled UAC (as you get sick of automatically clicking OK on all the myriad dialog boxes).
Exactly. According to Microsoft sales, every PC they've sold the place where I work for the last six months or so was a Vista box. Every last one of them runs XP. And we're not a small shop.
Of course, said drivers work only if the author pays his pound of gold to Microsoft first. Otherwise you're not approved and 64-bit Vista will not run it.
So if you're working for Company 'A' and in your off time at home you have a personal software project that you end up selling to Company 'B,' Company 'A' should be able to discipline you? I think not.
Maybe you think not, but in a lot of cases, it does work that way. Depends on your terms of employment that you signed and the laws of your state.
In this unusual case, there was a third defence: DMCA doesn't apply to the USAF.
Not quite; the defense is that the USAF can be sued for damages under the DMCA only with the Federal Government's consent, which was not given. It's a fine distinction, but a real one.
Seems pretty ontopic to me - he was, after all, the supreme political dissenter during one of the most brutally oppressive periods of history.
Oh, come on. The Romans weren't angels, but there have been lots of worse oppression than what you got under the Empire of Tiberius. Even Caligula's terrors were inflicted on the aristocracy in Rome; he didn't wreak all that much havoc on the average citizen in the provinces. You want to know what Pontius Pilate's only entry in actual history is? He took down the Imperial regalia from the Jerusalem temple when the Jewish leadership informed him how offensive it was. The Jerusalem population didn't even have to stage a protest. Granted, things in Judea got a lot nastier a few decades down the road.
What about the womens' rights to not feel threatened?
No such thing. A woman, or a man, for that matter, has a right not to *be* threatened, and if you believe that statement to be actual threat, that is one thing. But you cannot seriously make us legally responsible for other people's feelings.
Informative gives Karma but Funny doesn't. Therefore, people who appreciate the post and wish to give the user some karma will choose Informative.
People who appreciate the post and don't really understand the rating system, that is. The correct way to deal with this is to rate the post "Underrated". This gives the poster karma without hanging any new (and inappropriate) tag on the post.
We already grow enough crops. Hunger is a politically created distribution problem, not a problem of lack of food.
Every time this comes up someone trots out "it's a distribution problem, not a production problem" line.
Probably because it's the truth.
Here's a clue for you, while better distribution might be one part of the solution, so is more production, ie production where food is needed.
True, but the problem still isn't that the technology or capability to grow that food isn't there.
Any solution based on distribution is inevitably reliant on political goodwill. Production can empower people so that they aren't so dependant on ongoing political goodwill.
Got news for ya, bunkie. Any solution *period* is inevitably reliant on political goodwill. Your assertion is incorrect; production can't happen without ongoing political goodwill either. The reason these people can't grow their own food is that the local warlord comes and burns the crops to serve his own political ends.
Also, money is fungible. Put dollars in, get dollars out. There's no real problem provided that the bank doesn't do anything to improperly endanger the "get dollars out" part. But your data can be read and put to use by app provider and you'd never know.
An all-over body suit might. But then you have to take a leak sometime...
A body suit that was truly bulletproof at all points would be so heavy you could barely move and so stifling that you would probably have a heat stroke within a hour. The helmets in current military use aren't proof against a direct hit because it's not practical to make them so.
You can love your fellow man and wear body armour, to much the same effect. Peace does not require intimidating everyone else into cowardice. It is quite sufficient to make hostile intent completely ineffective.
Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't work; its very premise is invalid. If you have body armor but no weapon, and someone who wishes you dead has a gun, you will shortly be dead. No body armor made confers invulnerability to bullets.
You're asking for a screwdriver that's good at hammering nails. You want a hammer--in this case, a change-control system, of which there are many good OSS choices available.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an old naval tradition. Furthermore, an officer on board with the rank of Captain who is *not* in command of the ship will be addressed as "Commodore", as there can only be one captain of the ship (an army or marine captain will be addressed as "Major").
UAC isn't implementing application security. It's giving Microsoft a way to blame the user for his security breaches, because he either OK'd the access (as the interface trains you to automatically click OK on all the myriad dialog boxes) or because he disabled UAC (as you get sick of automatically clicking OK on all the myriad dialog boxes).
Exactly. According to Microsoft sales, every PC they've sold the place where I work for the last six months or so was a Vista box. Every last one of them runs XP. And we're not a small shop.
Step one: Admit you are powerless over security--that your systems have become unmanageable.
Of course, said drivers work only if the author pays his pound of gold to Microsoft first. Otherwise you're not approved and 64-bit Vista will not run it.
Maybe you think not, but in a lot of cases, it does work that way. Depends on your terms of employment that you signed and the laws of your state.
Not quite; the defense is that the USAF can be sued for damages under the DMCA only with the Federal Government's consent, which was not given. It's a fine distinction, but a real one.
Oh, come on. The Romans weren't angels, but there have been lots of worse oppression than what you got under the Empire of Tiberius. Even Caligula's terrors were inflicted on the aristocracy in Rome; he didn't wreak all that much havoc on the average citizen in the provinces. You want to know what Pontius Pilate's only entry in actual history is? He took down the Imperial regalia from the Jerusalem temple when the Jewish leadership informed him how offensive it was. The Jerusalem population didn't even have to stage a protest. Granted, things in Judea got a lot nastier a few decades down the road.
But do they have *Dark* Archons? 'Cause mind-control rocks. Of course, a simple EMP will make either kind of Archon go running home to Mommy.
"The third rocket crash landed, then blew up. But the *fourth* rocket...stayed up!"
And the Homeland Security officer says, "Who cares about your keys? Look at the neat notebook computer I just got!"
No such thing. A woman, or a man, for that matter, has a right not to *be* threatened, and if you believe that statement to be actual threat, that is one thing. But you cannot seriously make us legally responsible for other people's feelings.
Really? Who did you check with? Perhaps you should check again; you might've misheard him.
People who appreciate the post and don't really understand the rating system, that is. The correct way to deal with this is to rate the post "Underrated". This gives the poster karma without hanging any new (and inappropriate) tag on the post.
Probably because it's the truth.
True, but the problem still isn't that the technology or capability to grow that food isn't there.
Got news for ya, bunkie. Any solution *period* is inevitably reliant on political goodwill. Your assertion is incorrect; production can't happen without ongoing political goodwill either. The reason these people can't grow their own food is that the local warlord comes and burns the crops to serve his own political ends.
Also, money is fungible. Put dollars in, get dollars out. There's no real problem provided that the bank doesn't do anything to improperly endanger the "get dollars out" part. But your data can be read and put to use by app provider and you'd never know.
Yep. And, obviously, actually committing perjury about such things would make a man even more unfit to be Presdient.
Because, of course, there were no games before there were computers. Sheesh. There was a thriving gamers community before there was even Pong.
"Hello, my friend! Stay awhile, and listen!"
A body suit that was truly bulletproof at all points would be so heavy you could barely move and so stifling that you would probably have a heat stroke within a hour. The helmets in current military use aren't proof against a direct hit because it's not practical to make them so.
Ohhh, we represent the lily pad guild, the lily pad guild, the lily pad guild...
Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't work; its very premise is invalid. If you have body armor but no weapon, and someone who wishes you dead has a gun, you will shortly be dead. No body armor made confers invulnerability to bullets.
Emacs won't be complete until somebody adds a decent text editor to it. :-)
You're asking for a screwdriver that's good at hammering nails. You want a hammer--in this case, a change-control system, of which there are many good OSS choices available.
Oh, they've already been that route.