> Oh *that's* intuitive - I know it took quite some time till I found lsof
The error is in thinking that a computer should be intuitive. Computers are equivalent to Turing machines, modulo the bounded memory; they can go far, far beyond our intuitions. The only way to make them intuitive is to dumb them down, i.e. limit what they can do. So be prepared to choose between having your computer dumbed down to a consumer appliance or else having to learn a lot in order to master it.
> what if you don't want to kill that app? Often you're already browsing a completely different directory or -in case of Konqueror instead of Nautilus- you have a number of additional tabs open.
Yeah, that would be annoying. Next time it happens, write the app developer and aks him/her to fix it so that it doesn't hold stuff open that it isn't actually using, and explain the problem it causes for you. In my experience Linux app developers are very approachable, and though they may be very opinionated about how their application should behave they tend to be receptive about pragmatic suggestions regarding unintended effects.
> Windows software downloads can be big and bloated with DLLs but they generally work out of the box.
Did they finally get that fixed? I haven't used Windows since W'95, but I had all kind of dll problems, such as rendering my system unbootable by uninstalling a frikkin game.
At any rate, lots of other people have already mentioned using apt for Linux. I have also found that downloading source RPMs rather than binary RPMs will often show more charity about what library versions you have, in addition to taking advantage of machine-specific optimizations for your system.
The syntax has changed a couple of times, but for the version of Red Hat that I'm currently running I use -
Then install the RPMS that were placed in/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/*.
Also, keep in mind that the numbering scheme for libwhatever.so and links should let you have more than one version of a library installed on your system.
> Mere access to credit card numbers and the corresponding user list does not constitute a major threat, IMO. Most credit card users are indemnified against thefts, misuse etc.
If the cardholders are indemnified it just means the cost of the theft is passed back to the card company, the vendors, or their insurers. Who will of course ultimately pass the costs back to the customers.
There's a lot of PR convenience for "losing" thefts this way, and spreading the costs out thinly. But the cost is still there, and it's real.
> This sounds like straight abuse of confidential information. No computers required, no lax security required. A person with legitimate access to data went bad. As such, it's not really a criticism of Axiom's security policies . It is, however, a criticism of their hiring and monitoring policies.
I would say that if it was a simple matter of peeking, but since the employee apparently downloaded some of the data without them knowing it I would say that there's a problem with their security policies and controls.
> I wish I could have seen the look on their faces when the government called them up to let them know their own employee had stolen their customers' private data.
Of course you don't refer to a look of surprise; you refer to the calculating look of someone trying to figure out how to avoid responsibility, minimize the financial hit, and continue to forestall privacy legislation in the future.
> The real culprit, though, is incredibly cheap, bright lights. I don't like these because of their pink glow. Near the University of Texas, at night the low-hanging clouds looked like cotton candy from all the reflected pink light.
And The Tower, lighted up in its school colors, looks like a big ol' doggie dick pointed up at the sky.
[Not my joke; heard it from a friend who went to a rival school and apparently suffers tower envy.]
> One of the biggest reasons that SOE forbids these transfers is that they cannot take on the responsibilities of making the transactions secure. What about duping bugs? Or an 'accidental' deletion? Fraud? Fraud is a really major problem in SWG right now.
Or a hackattack like the one reported here a few months ago, where barbarians crack the game, teleport everyone to a city at the bottom of the sea, bonk their sheep, and cash in their virtual savings accounts.
> > Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.
> There's a market for crack and murder in Tulsa too....should that be legal? Just because there's something people are willing to pay for, doesn't mean it should be legally available.
Nice attempt to twist the argument. No one is saying that tolerance for crack and murder are or ought to be matters of local decision. The point was that if the fine folk of Tulsa didn't want porn there wouldn't be a market for it in Tulsa.
All this is nothing more than rationalization for a majority enforcing their sexual mores on everyone else in spite of the words of the Constitution and the principles enshrined in it.
> All fine and good, until you realize that the President has the right to his own opinions too. Toss out the ol' free speech when it comes to Bible quotes, eh? Just so long as you get your porn.
Notice that he didn't claim the president broke the law; he claimed that the president's behavior is scary.
And IMO having a bible-thumper at the helm of a superpower is every bit as scary as having the competing extremists in Iran get their hands on their own nukes.
> shut the hell up! I am sick and tired of people continuously saying "there is no free speech in America". My country has will and continually defends my right to criticize every institution of government.
But not your right to enjoy erotic material that the "moral" majority don't approve of?
> The law was decided to benefit the majority in the most specific way and if need be the law will change to benefit the majority in the most specific way.
Letting the majority censor the minority is a wholly different concept from free speech.
Also, what if the hardliners who run run Texas decide to declare that Howard Dean's anti-Bush commercials that started running there this week are "obscene". Should the SCOTUS still bug out, on the basis that obscenity is best defined parochially?
There's a reason the Bill of Rights insisted on various forms of freedom of expression.
> > The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he... possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device. A person who possesses six or more obscene devices... is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same."
> Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas.
Ehrm, maybe "packing" wasn't the best choice of words in that context.
> Another method used in shorting is "Borrowing." This is where an investor can sell someone else's stock, buy it back later at a cheaper price, and give back to the person who originally owned it.
Yeah, sometimes I do that with other people's cars, on weekends.
> This is comical because my big memory of my visits to Dallas for training were the abundance of "Gentleman's clubs".
Yeah, I found it funny a few years ago when the Texas legislature was pushing some kind of anti-naughty law or other and I drove through Austin on I-35 and saw huge billboards for "gentlemen's clubs" while also within sight of the capitol building.
> The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he... possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device. A person who possesses six or more obscene devices... is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same."
Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas.
> Lookit, laws re obscenity and speed limits and such are made on the state and local levels Because That Makes Sense! The people in downtown Tulsa don't want L.A.-style porn shops opening in their area, and the people in L.A. don't want to live in a Tulsa-esque climate. Fine! Great! Makes perfect sense!
Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.
There's a reason this stuff was being sold in Dallas, and it ain't that nobody in Dallas wants it.
> If the Fed comes in to determine what is "universally" obscene or not, folks in both Oklahoma and California aren't going to be happy by the compromise.
Of course, the Feds shouldn't be worrying themselves over what is obscene at all, universally or not. The US Constitution doesn't have any "except for obscene materials" clauses in it.
> Hey, this is America, Land of Opportunity, and if I want to get rich with a chain of Car Washes, I can go for it. But if I try to open one next to your suburban golf course or grammar school, I'm going to be denied. Why? Cuz of the local zoning laws. So I go elsewhere to pursue my "opportunity."
So if it was a zoning issue, why didn't they just close the shop instead of throwing an employee in jail?
> How refreshing that the Supreme Court is repsecting state statute on this one. I really do not want the Federal Goverment involving themselves with local lifestyle laws.
I do. We've got a sub-population in this country that's rampaging out of control, trying to get anyone who differs from them thrown in prison. You can't run a free country on that basis.
> the precedent has always been that the locale of the alleged offense has the right to determine what is "patently obscene" free speech is guaranteed, but if everyone around decides that what you say is obscene you can be shut down.
IOW, there isn't really any free speech.
> I for one, believe in personal responsibility. Your right to extend your fist ends when it hits my nose
And personal responsibility suggests that you shouldn't buy naughty comic books if you don't want to see them.
This may be "normal" in the USA, but it isn't "liberty and justice for all".
> Remember... dark middle-eastern looking men are Terrorists... they hurt our economy by destroying resources, spreading fear, and general mayhem.
> white balding men are Embezzalers and Stock Manipulators (for instance a certain umbrella organization or "canopy" group we can all think of), they hurt the economy by destroying competitors resources (money, clients, possible engagements/sales), spreading fear and... hmmm... maybe you have a point:)
Yeah, but the embezzelers and stock manipulators are just sucking money out of the pockets of the middle class, back "up" into the pockets of the class that was meant to have money.
> This guy plead GUILTY to the charges against him - not lesser charges - not pleading out of fear. He made a full admission of guilt, and as part of such he would have had to allocute to his crimes in court. That is, tell in his own words, what he did. Noone forced his hand, noone pulled his strings and put words in his mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
> Oh *that's* intuitive - I know it took quite some time till I found lsof
The error is in thinking that a computer should be intuitive. Computers are equivalent to Turing machines, modulo the bounded memory; they can go far, far beyond our intuitions. The only way to make them intuitive is to dumb them down, i.e. limit what they can do. So be prepared to choose between having your computer dumbed down to a consumer appliance or else having to learn a lot in order to master it.
> what if you don't want to kill that app? Often you're already browsing a completely different directory or -in case of Konqueror instead of Nautilus- you have a number of additional tabs open.
Yeah, that would be annoying. Next time it happens, write the app developer and aks him/her to fix it so that it doesn't hold stuff open that it isn't actually using, and explain the problem it causes for you. In my experience Linux app developers are very approachable, and though they may be very opinionated about how their application should behave they tend to be receptive about pragmatic suggestions regarding unintended effects.
Then install the RPMS that were placed in> Windows software downloads can be big and bloated with DLLs but they generally work out of the box.
Did they finally get that fixed? I haven't used Windows since W'95, but I had all kind of dll problems, such as rendering my system unbootable by uninstalling a frikkin game.
At any rate, lots of other people have already mentioned using apt for Linux. I have also found that downloading source RPMs rather than binary RPMs will often show more charity about what library versions you have, in addition to taking advantage of machine-specific optimizations for your system.
The syntax has changed a couple of times, but for the version of Red Hat that I'm currently running I use -
Also, keep in mind that the numbering scheme for libwhatever.so and links should let you have more than one version of a library installed on your system.
> Mere access to credit card numbers and the corresponding user list does not constitute a major threat, IMO. Most credit card users are indemnified against thefts, misuse etc.
If the cardholders are indemnified it just means the cost of the theft is passed back to the card company, the vendors, or their insurers. Who will of course ultimately pass the costs back to the customers.
There's a lot of PR convenience for "losing" thefts this way, and spreading the costs out thinly. But the cost is still there, and it's real.
> This sounds like straight abuse of confidential information. No computers required, no lax security required. A person with legitimate access to data went bad. As such, it's not really a criticism of Axiom's security policies . It is, however, a criticism of their hiring and monitoring policies.
I would say that if it was a simple matter of peeking, but since the employee apparently downloaded some of the data without them knowing it I would say that there's a problem with their security policies and controls.
> I wish I could have seen the look on their faces when the government called them up to let them know their own employee had stolen their customers' private data.
Of course you don't refer to a look of surprise; you refer to the calculating look of someone trying to figure out how to avoid responsibility, minimize the financial hit, and continue to forestall privacy legislation in the future.
> The real culprit, though, is incredibly cheap, bright lights. I don't like these because of their pink glow. Near the University of Texas, at night the low-hanging clouds looked like cotton candy from all the reflected pink light.
And The Tower, lighted up in its school colors, looks like a big ol' doggie dick pointed up at the sky.
[Not my joke; heard it from a friend who went to a rival school and apparently suffers tower envy.]
> Why do all the really clever people in the world have to be named Albert?
The really smart ones are all named Milhouse, but they tend to pick up nicknames along the way.
> Not only are they going to be addicted to a new game, they'll bankrupt them too.
It must be a pathetic lifestyle, being so addicted to a game that it cuts into your Slashdot time.
Now I'm off to do something constructive - after I check to see whether any of today's stories have any new posts.
> One of the biggest reasons that SOE forbids these transfers is that they cannot take on the responsibilities of making the transactions secure. What about duping bugs? Or an 'accidental' deletion? Fraud? Fraud is a really major problem in SWG right now.
Or a hackattack like the one reported here a few months ago, where barbarians crack the game, teleport everyone to a city at the bottom of the sea, bonk their sheep, and cash in their virtual savings accounts.
> Must...keep...reality..and fantasy....seperate.
Yeah, I so hate it when reality intrudes.
> you can put money in the system to get game money, or take game money out of the system as real money. Its been around for a while.
Yep, it's a very old idea, commonly known as "the stock market".
> > Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.
> There's a market for crack and murder in Tulsa too....should that be legal? Just because there's something people are willing to pay for, doesn't mean it should be legally available.
Nice attempt to twist the argument. No one is saying that tolerance for crack and murder are or ought to be matters of local decision. The point was that if the fine folk of Tulsa didn't want porn there wouldn't be a market for it in Tulsa.
All this is nothing more than rationalization for a majority enforcing their sexual mores on everyone else in spite of the words of the Constitution and the principles enshrined in it.
> All fine and good, until you realize that the President has the right to his own opinions too. Toss out the ol' free speech when it comes to Bible quotes, eh? Just so long as you get your porn.
Notice that he didn't claim the president broke the law; he claimed that the president's behavior is scary.
And IMO having a bible-thumper at the helm of a superpower is every bit as scary as having the competing extremists in Iran get their hands on their own nukes.
> shut the hell up! I am sick and tired of people continuously saying "there is no free speech in America". My country has will and continually defends my right to criticize every institution of government.
But not your right to enjoy erotic material that the "moral" majority don't approve of?
> The law was decided to benefit the majority in the most specific way and if need be the law will change to benefit the majority in the most specific way.
Letting the majority censor the minority is a wholly different concept from free speech.
Also, what if the hardliners who run run Texas decide to declare that Howard Dean's anti-Bush commercials that started running there this week are "obscene". Should the SCOTUS still bug out, on the basis that obscenity is best defined parochially?
There's a reason the Bill of Rights insisted on various forms of freedom of expression.
> > The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he
> Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas.
Ehrm, maybe "packing" wasn't the best choice of words in that context.
> Another method used in shorting is "Borrowing." This is where an investor can sell someone else's stock, buy it back later at a cheaper price, and give back to the person who originally owned it.
Yeah, sometimes I do that with other people's cars, on weekends.
> This is comical because my big memory of my visits to Dallas for training were the abundance of "Gentleman's clubs".
Yeah, I found it funny a few years ago when the Texas legislature was pushing some kind of anti-naughty law or other and I drove through Austin on I-35 and saw huge billboards for "gentlemen's clubs" while also within sight of the capitol building.
> The Texas Penal Code isn't generally thought of as a laugh-out-loud read, but Section 43.23 is an exception: "A person commits an offense if he
Ah, the Five Dildo Limit. Remember that when packing for a trip to Texas.
> Lookit, laws re obscenity and speed limits and such are made on the state and local levels Because That Makes Sense! The people in downtown Tulsa don't want L.A.-style porn shops opening in their area, and the people in L.A. don't want to live in a Tulsa-esque climate. Fine! Great! Makes perfect sense!
Of course, if the fine folk in Tulsa don't want that stuff they won't buy it, and the shops will fold due to lack of business.
There's a reason this stuff was being sold in Dallas, and it ain't that nobody in Dallas wants it.
> If the Fed comes in to determine what is "universally" obscene or not, folks in both Oklahoma and California aren't going to be happy by the compromise.
Of course, the Feds shouldn't be worrying themselves over what is obscene at all, universally or not. The US Constitution doesn't have any "except for obscene materials" clauses in it.
> Hey, this is America, Land of Opportunity, and if I want to get rich with a chain of Car Washes, I can go for it. But if I try to open one next to your suburban golf course or grammar school, I'm going to be denied. Why? Cuz of the local zoning laws. So I go elsewhere to pursue my "opportunity."
So if it was a zoning issue, why didn't they just close the shop instead of throwing an employee in jail?
> How refreshing that the Supreme Court is repsecting state statute on this one. I really do not want the Federal Goverment involving themselves with local lifestyle laws.
I do. We've got a sub-population in this country that's rampaging out of control, trying to get anyone who differs from them thrown in prison. You can't run a free country on that basis.
> ok, so it's a pet issue of Hemos' but does this really merit a story on slashdot?
Jesus arrested for selling pr0n, and you don't think it's news!
> the precedent has always been that the locale of the alleged offense has the right to determine what is "patently obscene" free speech is guaranteed, but if everyone around decides that what you say is obscene you can be shut down.
IOW, there isn't really any free speech.
> I for one, believe in personal responsibility. Your right to extend your fist ends when it hits my nose
And personal responsibility suggests that you shouldn't buy naughty comic books if you don't want to see them.
This may be "normal" in the USA, but it isn't "liberty and justice for all".
> Remember
> white balding men are Embezzalers and Stock Manipulators (for instance a certain umbrella organization or "canopy" group we can all think of), they hurt the economy by destroying competitors resources (money, clients, possible engagements/sales), spreading fear and
Yeah, but the embezzelers and stock manipulators are just sucking money out of the pockets of the middle class, back "up" into the pockets of the class that was meant to have money.
> This guy plead GUILTY to the charges against him - not lesser charges - not pleading out of fear. He made a full admission of guilt, and as part of such he would have had to allocute to his crimes in court. That is, tell in his own words, what he did. Noone forced his hand, noone pulled his strings and put words in his mouth.
And you know this because...?
<jayleno>They called it L-S-D.</jayleno>
> Remember when 'innocent until proven guilty' meant something?
Back in the good ol' days, before the War on Drugs?