Oh yeah, that includes patriotism as well btw. Typically they want you to die for their benefit.
Err, no, "they" don't: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." (General Patton)
Go back to the rich world, get a job and donate all the money you save by living in the Toga-like conditions to the cause.
Thus funded, the skilled locals (frequenters of that "local market" you mention) will be able to do the job themselves. They would happily switch places and take your place in the rich world, but various protectionist and anti-immigration laws keep them in Africa (mostly)...
But if you insist on wasting your time and effort over there, try asking the Gates Foundation... Ha-ha.
Yes, I think so too. In addition, I don't think, the Mars rovers certainly aren't programmed in C++ either... Would be pretty lame for the author of the language to claim credit like this...
Mostly it works by discriminating on the basis of source or destination port. A couple apps are nice enough to set the "type of service" bits in the ip header, so you don't need to look at port numbers.
So, if my torrent-client marks its packets as "ssh", your setup will grant them a higher priority whatever the port they are heading to? I'll make a note of this...
Joking aside, what this means is that this tag-based shaping only makes sense only on systems/networks within the same administrative domain — you have to trust the source of the packets to label them correctly.
Or, you could make your side of the conversation check the labels and discard the lying packets (have your torrent-application ignore the incoming packets, which mislabel themselves as "ssh"). But this has to be done on the host itself, and can not be delegated to a central firewall somewhere.
I wonder, how exactly Vista is doing this — I bet, they just trust the source:-)
Well it's not really MY theory, I'm just assuming that it has to be something along those lines.
Well, if you are assuming, then it isyour theory — pretty much by definition. Whatever, "theory" or "assumption", it was a wrong one.
That being said I was held for 3 hours in US custody for no reason besides having visited too many Arab countries. And I'm an Armenian Christian from France (my dad works as an expat in the Arab Gulf), so don't think they wouldn't stop you based on ONE factor.
Of course, there may be ONE factor! If you had a bomb with you, you would've spent a few more hours there, for example. But ordering Halal or being from a "-stan" is not such a factor.
There is a Halal food-stand next to where I work, and they are quite popular during lunch hour — their lamb is delicious. You think, every one of their customers is marked as a potential terrorist? Photographed and video-taped from "black helicopters" above?..
Where we live, there are two Halal meat stores. Other businesses. Plenty of Arabs around — you think, they are unduly suspected/molested? No, they are not. In fact, there is an Army recruitment poster next to the subway station in both English and Arabic: "Your country needs you," — or some such.
Oh, yes, and nobody is compelling them to (not) wear anything...
[...] you ordered your meal to be halal then you're flagged as potential terrorist.
I always order Halal — because airline Kosher tends to be too bland. Never had any problems. I am not from a "-stan", but almost so — born and raised in Ukraine, home to a sizable Muslim minority and easy to enter from nearby "-stans". So much for your little fear-mongering theory, is not there?
Then, again, maybe I am flagged as a potential terrorist — don't know. I do know, that so far this has not impacted my lifestyle in the least...
The verb peddle has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts)
1. (2) peddle, monger, huckster, hawk, vend, pitch -- (sell or offer for sale from place to place)
And handling human input is not Google's core strength. They are excellent at searching through texts, finding patterns, etc. But offering answers from humans (beyond simply "googling it") is something else — not that they can't do it, just that it is not employing their major strength...
So their offering was not better than Yahoo!'s (probably even worse), and hence they wisely killed it...
I suspect, their image-tagging project will suffer a similar fate. That it still exists is, probably, due to absence of competition (unlike the "Answers").
Your opinions viz. copyright laws in general are off-topic both in this thread and the entire board. So I will not discuss that.
That's your opinion, mine happens to differ. I see nothing immoral [...]
Excellent illustration to my point: Immoral is not Illegal. Immoral is relative, illegal is pretty well defined, and the arbiters are known even better.
I only mentioned "home healthcare aids" in a quote from the previous author.
I am the "previous author" and I mentioned it, because the article (and the/. write-up) did — in an attempt at "passionate appeal", which was foolish.
I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth.
It now seems, that you participated in this thread (and the whole board) because of some convictions on an entirely different subject (that copyright should not be transferable, and that those not profiting from copyright violations should not be prosecuted for them). It is your fault, that your opinion was mis-interpreted to have been on-topic: whether or not the poor (those, who can't afford legal defense) defendants can be prosecuted by a (much richer) claimant.
there are usually few ways to report "bugs" and often nobody to read such bug reports if they were generated.
Bug-reporting is easy — you write to the bureaucracy's head (they'll never read it, but their staff might).
As for reacting to a bug-report, well, that sucks with most software... Something small with a single maintainer may get fixed quickly, but large projects (like KDE or Mozilla) have bug-reports lingering for years (I filed quite a few).
Insurgents don't win by 'holding territory', they win by forcing invaders to cower in their 'Green Zone'
Except, this is not, what Iraqis are doing. They are killing each other instead. The number one concern for the last year or so is Iraq's slide into civil war.
Once again: May all our enemies' victories be such.
America thought they could win a 21st century war with 20th century tactics.
The actions by any organization larger than, uhm, 200 people, are controlled by written procedures and norms, which are software. You'd, probably, learn this much in a management course (not that I tried).
The bigger the organization, the more likely you are to deal with someone who is merely executing the instructions — unable of, and unthinking about changing them. An organization like government, or a huge department like Homeland Security is all about it. A few "software engineers" and "analysts" high above devise the algorithms, some more "coding monkeys" codify it, and then it gets to run "in production".
We are the users. And we get worked-up about the bugs. In this case, the bug is a security one, where a presented certificate is accepted without checking with the issuer.
Somebody thought, that it would be good to limit the crowds next to the gates to people with boarding passes. Checking, that the pass is valid (as airlines do at the actual gates), either did not occur to the coder at all or was deemed too expensive...
The new release will, hopefully, have a fix. If not, than, certainly, the next one. Nothing, you've never heard before.
So, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright?
Copyright infringement has no direct negative effect on another.
Is that a yes? As in: "Yes, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright?"
Violating copyright? I don't think the free exchange of information should be restricted.
Oh, ok, so you are against copyrights in general? Then just say so and argue that point, instead of the passionate crap about "home healthcare aids".
I do believe that the RIAA's tactics are morally wrong, and I don't think they should even be allowed.
Immoral is not illegal. Copying someone else's work without permission — to give away or for oneself — is immoral too. And it is also illegal. To hell with RIAA, if you copy and start giving away my pademelons design, you'll be wrong (both morally and legally) and I'll come after you... That RIAA is many thousand times richer than I am makes no difference — we both hate people copying (a.k.a. stealing, yes, stealing as in "depriving of something valuable") our works. Even if those copying (the thieves) are unemployed...
Here we are talking about a court case
We are? We just talked about free flow of information — get your story straight and stay on subject...
brought by a multi-million dollar company against an individual, not a violation of the law witnessed by a law enforcement officer.
What's the difference? One's chances of success in court rise greatly with hiring a lawyer regardless of who the claimant is — a "multi-million" (don't you hate them just for that?) corporation or a law-enforcement officer... Those hired lawyers are very expensive and the richer side will always have an advantage in court. That is the problem — not RIAA's "playing" by the current rules of litigation.
If RIAA went after "trustafarians" and CEOs copying music, would you approve of them? No, you wouldn't, because you think, there should be no copyright on music. Then stop pretending, it is about "home healthcare aids"...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know about the mysterious "they" (as in "what did they expect"), but I expected exactly this. Free market at work. Supply and demand, etc.
Err, no, "they" don't: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." (General Patton)
Trouble is, if it still was necessary (in his opinion), he would've done it...
Go back to the rich world, get a job and donate all the money you save by living in the Toga-like conditions to the cause.
Thus funded, the skilled locals (frequenters of that "local market" you mention) will be able to do the job themselves. They would happily switch places and take your place in the rich world, but various protectionist and anti-immigration laws keep them in Africa (mostly)...
But if you insist on wasting your time and effort over there, try asking the Gates Foundation... Ha-ha.
Yes, I think so too. In addition, I don't think, the Mars rovers certainly aren't programmed in C++ either... Would be pretty lame for the author of the language to claim credit like this...
So, if my torrent-client marks its packets as "ssh", your setup will grant them a higher priority whatever the port they are heading to? I'll make a note of this...
Joking aside, what this means is that this tag-based shaping only makes sense only on systems/networks within the same administrative domain — you have to trust the source of the packets to label them correctly.
Or, you could make your side of the conversation check the labels and discard the lying packets (have your torrent-application ignore the incoming packets, which mislabel themselves as "ssh"). But this has to be done on the host itself, and can not be delegated to a central firewall somewhere.
I wonder, how exactly Vista is doing this — I bet, they just trust the source :-)
Well, if you are assuming, then it is your theory — pretty much by definition. Whatever, "theory" or "assumption", it was a wrong one.
Of course, there may be ONE factor! If you had a bomb with you, you would've spent a few more hours there, for example. But ordering Halal or being from a "-stan" is not such a factor.
There is a Halal food-stand next to where I work, and they are quite popular during lunch hour — their lamb is delicious. You think, every one of their customers is marked as a potential terrorist? Photographed and video-taped from "black helicopters" above?..
Where we live, there are two Halal meat stores. Other businesses. Plenty of Arabs around — you think, they are unduly suspected/molested? No, they are not. In fact, there is an Army recruitment poster next to the subway station in both English and Arabic: "Your country needs you," — or some such.
Oh, yes, and nobody is compelling them to (not) wear anything...
I always order Halal — because airline Kosher tends to be too bland. Never had any problems. I am not from a "-stan", but almost so — born and raised in Ukraine, home to a sizable Muslim minority and easy to enter from nearby "-stans". So much for your little fear-mongering theory, is not there?
Then, again, maybe I am flagged as a potential terrorist — don't know. I do know, that so far this has not impacted my lifestyle in the least...
They already know. Federal Government is just catching up on the use of technology employed by marketeers and creditors.
And handling human input is not Google's core strength. They are excellent at searching through texts, finding patterns, etc. But offering answers from humans (beyond simply "googling it") is something else — not that they can't do it, just that it is not employing their major strength...
So their offering was not better than Yahoo!'s (probably even worse), and hence they wisely killed it...
I suspect, their image-tagging project will suffer a similar fate. That it still exists is, probably, due to absence of competition (unlike the "Answers").
Yes... There are other "multi-chargers" too, and eBay sellers peddle plenty of them.
Excellent illustration to my point: Immoral is not Illegal. Immoral is relative, illegal is pretty well defined, and the arbiters are known even better.
I am the "previous author" and I mentioned it, because the article (and the /. write-up) did — in an attempt at "passionate appeal", which was foolish.
It now seems, that you participated in this thread (and the whole board) because of some convictions on an entirely different subject (that copyright should not be transferable, and that those not profiting from copyright violations should not be prosecuted for them). It is your fault, that your opinion was mis-interpreted to have been on-topic: whether or not the poor (those, who can't afford legal defense) defendants can be prosecuted by a (much richer) claimant.
That not be a victory, but it is not necessarily a defeat either.
And it is not a true reflection of what happened in Iraq. Some of the goals are accomplished:
So, even by your definition, there is no "defeat".
"But feel free to pretend otherwise"...
No, I'm claiming, that your earlier argument that "insurgents get invaders to cower in Green Zones" is not valid. That's all.
Bug-reporting is easy — you write to the bureaucracy's head (they'll never read it, but their staff might).
As for reacting to a bug-report, well, that sucks with most software... Something small with a single maintainer may get fixed quickly, but large projects (like KDE or Mozilla) have bug-reports lingering for years (I filed quite a few).
You are relying on security through obscurity. There are arguments for it, but they are generally frowned upon. Certainly around Slasdhot :-)
I do. That's why I called it "imitation".
Vendors of commercial software would have you believe, free is supposed to be much worse: "Free and worth every penny"...
That it is even on par is great. If it is better, even if by "not much" — that's terrific!..
Personally, I'd rather the world used FreeBSD, of course, instead of imitations like "MacOS"/"Darwin", or "Linux" :-)
Except, this is not, what Iraqis are doing. They are killing each other instead. The number one concern for the last year or so is Iraq's slide into civil war.
Once again: May all our enemies' victories be such.
Meaningless sound-bite.
So? Iran-Iraq war was similarly "unwinnable" (for both sides). Who lost it? Who won it? Columbia's war with FARC is/was the same. B.s. criteria...
Nope. Evacuating one's embassy under fire is a defeat. An enemy's flag on your government building(s) is a defeat.
But feel free to pretend otherwise.
The actions by any organization larger than, uhm, 200 people, are controlled by written procedures and norms, which are software. You'd, probably, learn this much in a management course (not that I tried).
The bigger the organization, the more likely you are to deal with someone who is merely executing the instructions — unable of, and unthinking about changing them. An organization like government, or a huge department like Homeland Security is all about it. A few "software engineers" and "analysts" high above devise the algorithms, some more "coding monkeys" codify it, and then it gets to run "in production".
We are the users. And we get worked-up about the bugs. In this case, the bug is a security one, where a presented certificate is accepted without checking with the issuer.
Somebody thought, that it would be good to limit the crowds next to the gates to people with boarding passes. Checking, that the pass is valid (as airlines do at the actual gates), either did not occur to the coder at all or was deemed too expensive...
The new release will, hopefully, have a fix. If not, than, certainly, the next one. Nothing, you've never heard before.
Insurgents have defeated us? Somehow, I don't see any victory parades... Nor any territory held by them. Nor any of their leaders in public.
May all of our enemies' "victories" be such...
We'll be killing each other, until the invaders are humiliated and withdraw in shame.
Is that a yes? As in: "Yes, the unemployed and the "home healthcare aids" are allowed to infringe on copyright?"
Oh, ok, so you are against copyrights in general? Then just say so and argue that point, instead of the passionate crap about "home healthcare aids".
Immoral is not illegal. Copying someone else's work without permission — to give away or for oneself — is immoral too. And it is also illegal. To hell with RIAA, if you copy and start giving away my pademelons design, you'll be wrong (both morally and legally) and I'll come after you... That RIAA is many thousand times richer than I am makes no difference — we both hate people copying (a.k.a. stealing, yes, stealing as in "depriving of something valuable") our works. Even if those copying (the thieves) are unemployed...
We are? We just talked about free flow of information — get your story straight and stay on subject...
What's the difference? One's chances of success in court rise greatly with hiring a lawyer regardless of who the claimant is — a "multi-million" (don't you hate them just for that?) corporation or a law-enforcement officer... Those hired lawyers are very expensive and the richer side will always have an advantage in court. That is the problem — not RIAA's "playing" by the current rules of litigation.
If RIAA went after "trustafarians" and CEOs copying music, would you approve of them? No, you wouldn't, because you think, there should be no copyright on music. Then stop pretending, it is about "home healthcare aids"...