They are *not* properly engineered. They are redundant, cumbersome, and altogether many design decisions are unnecessary. I say this as someone who has lived in the UK for a good many years.
There are other solutions than jail, that don't have to allow a danger to society.
Locking him up because there is a probability he *may* kill someone is too close to minority report, and if you can't see what's wrong with that, then I feel sorry for you.
In the U.S., there is a law of Fitness for Merchantability. Does that law protect Microsoft's users, since in some cases we can't use what we bought without NewSID, or some other SID-changing utility?
Just wanted to single this out, but the rest of your post is good. A law for a Fitness for Merchantability would not apply in this case. Windows is sold as a particular product, with particular uses impled and expected. If you want to use it for things outside of this scope, you should not, and legally can not, expect further support. This is similar, but no where near as extreme, as running a Hackintosh.
What is wrong with you people all advocating or demanding he be locked up again? This is not we as a society(and especially./'s who are meant to be a bit more enlightened) should be advocating. Here we have a person who, for all intents and purposes, acted involuntarily. As someone who used to have a violence problem, I know just how hard it can be to gain self control, and not just react without thinking.
This guy may be a greater danger to society, but we don't just lock him up again because of that. Jesus. On the other hand, we should be aware that he may be a greater danger. The ideal treatment is then therapy, drugs, or perhaps some isolation. But not simply locking him up because it makes everyone else potentially safer.
netbooks are not a laptop replacement. Of course you would leave your laptop in your room, because there is an expectation of security, close to that ofy our own home. Or, there should be.
He did exactly the right move in suspending foreclosures, in which he prevented innocent people being kicked out of there homes because of mistakes made by the banks or land lords.
He was enforcing the law, and doing a morally correct act before anyone even knew who he was. I'm not sure why you try to make his actions appear as though they were just for publicity.
I'm not sure how to take his trying to sue craigslist though.
If you want worldwide distribution and marketing, and the money and manpower needed to make your game as big and detailed as you want it to be, then a publisher comes into it.
Compare making a game like, say, Batman: Arkham Asylum from scratch, compared to say....Bejewled.
I get that since the companies want to do business in Europe, they have to follow the regulations and be approved and such.
However, they are US companies. Not EU companies.
So what can the EU actually do? If the US OK's it, surely the resulting company can be barred from doing business in the EU or whatever..., but even that more than likely would not hold.
I understand the practicalities, but I just wonder what actual power the EU has to stop US companies from joining.
Sure, I get that....but why can the EU affect a merger?
Since they are both US companies, sureley only the US has a say if they can merge or not? If the EU does not agree, they can prevent the new company from doing business there.
I get that that is not ideal for the company...but technically, why would the EU actually have any say?
Sorry? I have, and do. I work closely in this exact field, and so I know that what you are saying id due to a lack of understanding. Otherwise, please show this apparent flaw in Solaris RBAC documented somewhere meaningful other than a slashdot comment.
People who say "But Linux doesn't need this ability", or, "Linux is secure", compeltely miss the point. It is always a great example of yealotry and/or ignorance.
Corporations want to be able to lock down workstations, and set company policy. No games. No changing the wallpaper. No using a non standard web browser. No writing and running your own applications(exlcuding of course dev houses).
It doesn't matter if you personally think these features are stupid, it is what the industry demands. Simple UNIX permissions are not enough, and as awesome as RSBAC or SELinux is, these are much more suited to servers, being too combersome for thousands of workstations.
By default, most Linux distributions can not do this. It is getting better, and I think gnome has a guide on how to lock the desktop and set policy. However, it simply is not there yet, and until developers realise this is what is wanted/needed/required, Linux as a desktop choice will continue to get rejected outside of outfits where employyes really only do do basic document and emailing stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe 50%. You underestimate their reach, and the state of the worlds population significantly.
The fuse. The size. The earthpin.
Not to mention having the pins flex would actually be a safety *advantage*.
They are *not* properly engineered. They are redundant, cumbersome, and altogether many design decisions are unnecessary. I say this as someone who has lived in the UK for a good many years.
Give your blind British patriotism a rest, eh?
There are other solutions than jail, that don't have to allow a danger to society.
Locking him up because there is a probability he *may* kill someone is too close to minority report, and if you can't see what's wrong with that, then I feel sorry for you.
In the U.S., there is a law of Fitness for Merchantability. Does that law protect Microsoft's users, since in some cases we can't use what we bought without NewSID, or some other SID-changing utility?
Just wanted to single this out, but the rest of your post is good. A law for a Fitness for Merchantability would not apply in this case. Windows is sold as a particular product, with particular uses impled and expected. If you want to use it for things outside of this scope, you should not, and legally can not, expect further support. This is similar, but no where near as extreme, as running a Hackintosh.
What is wrong with you people all advocating or demanding he be locked up again? This is not we as a society(and especially ./'s who are meant to be a bit more enlightened) should be advocating. Here we have a person who, for all intents and purposes, acted involuntarily. As someone who used to have a violence problem, I know just how hard it can be to gain self control, and not just react without thinking.
This guy may be a greater danger to society, but we don't just lock him up again because of that. Jesus. On the other hand, we should be aware that he may be a greater danger. The ideal treatment is then therapy, drugs, or perhaps some isolation. But not simply locking him up because it makes everyone else potentially safer.
source?
The 'wealth' in most religions is not money, but life after death.
Why shouldn't they be looked at, as superstitious idiots, at least in some cases?
Outside of religion, no one raises an eyebrow when people rightfully have contempt for the willful ignorant and stupid.
Or Android? Or Ubuntu? Why does it have to be Apple?
OpenBSD normally fixes stuff ~6 months before most vendors, are they vulnerable to this attack?
How is that XSS?
netbooks are not a laptop replacement. Of course you would leave your laptop in your room, because there is an expectation of security, close to that ofy our own home. Or, there should be.
She is also a man.....
http://www.rutkowska.yoyo.pl/
I also wonder why member states can force their local laws to be EU wide.....
He did exactly the right move in suspending foreclosures, in which he prevented innocent people being kicked out of there homes because of mistakes made by the banks or land lords.
He was enforcing the law, and doing a morally correct act before anyone even knew who he was. I'm not sure why you try to make his actions appear as though they were just for publicity.
I'm not sure how to take his trying to sue craigslist though.
Or.....
It was a coincidence.
Sure, for small games.
If you want worldwide distribution and marketing, and the money and manpower needed to make your game as big and detailed as you want it to be, then a publisher comes into it.
Compare making a game like, say, Batman: Arkham Asylum from scratch, compared to say....Bejewled.
I get that since the companies want to do business in Europe, they have to follow the regulations and be approved and such.
However, they are US companies. Not EU companies.
So what can the EU actually do? If the US OK's it, surely the resulting company can be barred from doing business in the EU or whatever..., but even that more than likely would not hold.
I understand the practicalities, but I just wonder what actual power the EU has to stop US companies from joining.
Sure, because you're in a position to know.
Personally, I'd be much more concerned with the US and having an illegal base in Cuba and kidnapping and detaining innocent people unlawfully.
Sure, I get that....but why can the EU affect a merger?
Since they are both US companies, sureley only the US has a say if they can merge or not? If the EU does not agree, they can prevent the new company from doing business there.
I get that that is not ideal for the company...but technically, why would the EU actually have any say?
Sorry? I have, and do. I work closely in this exact field, and so I know that what you are saying id due to a lack of understanding. Otherwise, please show this apparent flaw in Solaris RBAC documented somewhere meaningful other than a slashdot comment.
This is exactly right.
People who say "But Linux doesn't need this ability", or, "Linux is secure", compeltely miss the point. It is always a great example of yealotry and/or ignorance.
Corporations want to be able to lock down workstations, and set company policy. No games. No changing the wallpaper. No using a non standard web browser. No writing and running your own applications(exlcuding of course dev houses).
It doesn't matter if you personally think these features are stupid, it is what the industry demands. Simple UNIX permissions are not enough, and as awesome as RSBAC or SELinux is, these are much more suited to servers, being too combersome for thousands of workstations.
By default, most Linux distributions can not do this. It is getting better, and I think gnome has a guide on how to lock the desktop and set policy. However, it simply is not there yet, and until developers realise this is what is wanted/needed/required, Linux as a desktop choice will continue to get rejected outside of outfits where employyes really only do do basic document and emailing stuff.
Idiots. Sure, it sucked, but your team losing should not be an excuse to want to inflict grevious harm upon another human being.
Idiots.