Do you have any idea what it's like to feel that you're being opressed, and there isn't a thing in the world you can do about it? It grinds down your soul, until there is either nothing left, or you are forced to make a (often terrible) stand for what you believe in.
Yes, I know what it feels like. I am, after all, human. We ALL feel that way from time to time. Sometimes, however, there are people who are in a position of authority over us who are charged with the responsibility of teaching us, and guiding our development. When I was in school, if a teacher or principal demanded that I modify a certain behavior, I basically had two choices. Be guided.... or be defiant.
If a student makes it perfectly clear that they WILL NOT be taught, they have no real reason to be in school, and ought not be there to impede the learning of the students who are willing be taught.
Once again, we take a legitimate concern like bullying, and overreact such that anyone who feels the slightest bit offended by something someone else does screams "I'm being bullied!" Bullying is a real problem. To shout "Bully!" when someone in a position of authority exercises that authority, however, diminishes the real cases of bullying.
This kid made very public, albeit veiled threats of violence against the school administration simply because he "felt bullied." The threats were so veiled, I'm not really sure they cross the line. However, the administration has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the staff and student body in order to facilitate the primary mission, which is to advance student learning. They must, in many cases, use their best judgment in discerning what constitutes a threat of violence against the staff and/or student body.
The principal knows this kid, and his history. We, the random readers of Slashdot, do not. The principal is in the thick of this situation, whereas all we know is what one reporter has written about it. The principal is charged with the responsibility of protecting the school. We are not.
If this kid took it further, and actually did something to which he had been alluding, the argument would now be that the administration is inept for not taking action when he had clearly made threats. To prevent action simply based on the notion that the principal is "bullying" the kid is grotesque.
Give the principal the slack his position deserves.
.xxx was an interesting thought in figuring how to deal with the problem.
Even a moment's thought shows that it is not a good idea at all.
If I'm a purveyor of smut, I don't want to be behind a blanket firewall. I want people to be able to sneak over to my site at will. I would never use the.xxx TLD... unless forced to do so (even then I would try to weasel my way out of that corral).
If the.xxx TLD initiative had passed, porn on the Internet would remain where it doesn't belong...all-pervasive and impossible to effectively block, because it would never be used...but at least they would have made their 'stand'. Well done.
If the government decides who gets to speak, and about what, and how they are doing the speaking, how can that be called "free speech"? If I am barred by the federal government from hiring someone to get my message out, then the government has trampled on my constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
The "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with monetary cost. It's about a lack of interference from the government.
It goes like this: "You can speak your mind about anything.... unless you're paying someone to help you do it, and it's about political subjects, then we must prevent you from speaking in order to guarantee your right to free speech".
Kinda like burning down the village in order to save it.
I ask a doctor to take some cells from my body, and use them as a basis to generate new cells that can be used to treat a disease that afflicts me. Where does a "new human life" enter the picture?
When this DNA is implanted into an egg to fertilize it, and cell division begins, the entity at that moment is a new human being. It is at this point that the "doctors" will kill the new human being (in direct conflict with the hypocratic oath) to harvest its cells.
There is a far more important factor however. The cause for which these monsters fought, whatever that may be, MUST be SET BACK as a result of their actions. To not do major damage to the cause which inspired their bloodthirsty mission is to invite more of the same. The world MUST see that to launch terrorist attacks (particularly against us) is to damage your own cause!
If those who gave the orders are still alive next month, terrorism has won, and will continue (apparantly unabated). We cannot not allow that.
President Bush's decision has nothing at all to do with preventing embryonic stem cell research. It only has to do with what the government uses the money it took from me (and the rest of American citizens).
Truth is, embryonic stem cell research was *already* illegal long before Bush took office. Oh yes. A law Bill Clinton signed already prohibits it, but that's not what President Bush's decision was about. It was merely saying that the government can't use the money it confiscates from the people to create new people whose only purpose is to die for scientific research.
I think he was right. The human beings who have already been created and killed may at least be used for scientific discovery, but no more of MY money should be spent growing people to be harvested.
This could be a related problem.
I have a Handspring Visor, with a USB cradle. For awhile, my computer would reboot occasionally when I dropped the Visor into the cradle. This was a sudden hard boot. The OS (Win2K) didn't decide to shut down or anything, the screen just immediately would go black, followed by the BIOS POST, OS load, and so on.
It only stopped happening when I replaced the cradle with a serial one.
It seems to me that phrases like "protecting our children" or "shielding them" are misleading.
One thing children are constantly doing is learning. When they are at school, they are (hopefully) learning. When they are playing in the park, they are learning. When they are with their friends, they are learning. And when they are browsing the Internet, they are learning. What do you, as parents, want them to learn? It is the duty of the parents to guide them in their education.
To not allow children to view certain objectionable sites (or read objectionable magazines, or watch objectionable TV) is a good way to help them to not be distracted learning garbage instead of something valuable.
People keep looking at the whole Napster debate as being about the people having some inherent right to listen to whatever music they want without having to pay those evil record companies.
That's not what it's about.
It's about the right of the creator of an artistic work to sell the product of their endeavor. Do I have the right to insist on being compensated for creating an album filled with musical works? Do I have the right to insist that if you don't want to pay for it, then you can't play my music? In this country (the U.S.), I do have that right.
It is the Napster users who trample on our rights!
Yeah, because we all know that the Linux Corporation has lots of extra money to throw around on bought-and-paid-for benchmarking tests. Companies with real integrity (like Microsoft) would never do something this transparent!
Irrelevant. The point is that Windows 2000 DOES have shares open by default, contrary to your assertion that "your average win2k install has nothing running". If it can be safely assumed that all of the open services are safe, then it doesn't matter how many services are open, and we all know that SMB/CIFS is perfectly (ahem) safe.
I'm voting Bush because he agrees with me on almost every issue, and he is a strong player in the party that agrees with me on almost every issue. The fact that he is an extremely honorable man makes me very comfortable in that choice.
Like most things on the internet, change is driven by demand. The US military began the whole thing, and there's just not enough demand to change it, so it stays. If enough people objected to it, it would be changed.
The first ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees (among other things) the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The right to voluntarily gather together for common purpose is fundamental to the American philosophy.
I cannot move a boulder alone, but if get some of my friends together, and we push the boulder together, we can get it done. The computer I typed this message on could not possibly have been created were it not for those "corporatists" gathering together to get it done. I know of no *individuals* who could possibly pull off such a feat alone.
Individualism? Bah! United we stand, divided we fall.
I was recently flying out of Manchester airport, and observed that one of the displays showing the passengers flight information, instead of showing this information had a Blue Screen Of Death. I thought to myself "Thank God they don't use Windows in the tower.... they don't, do they?". Bugs are only important if you expect to deploy in mission critical areas. I don't care if some telemarketer's desktop PC crashes, but Micros~1 is trying to move into markets where bugs will literally kill people.
The Geneva Convention is very important. Loading it up with nonsensical "protections" serves only to dilute it, and make it less credible. Nerve gas deserves to be banned. Hacking the enemy's computers does not.
WRT the concept that this kind of "attack" would invite similar reprisal, I say that we are already a target of opportunity for every nutcase out there. They need no further excuse to attack us.
The hypocrisey is that when some of George W's political enemies make some vague and totally unsubstantiated claim that he used cocaine long ago, he is then lebelled a "cocaine addict" from then on. Meanwhile there are several specific allegations by people (such as his own brother) who claim that they've wintessed Clinton doing cocaine on several occasions, and yet the press just ignores it or chalks it up to those wascally wepublicans trying to slander their hero.
We tried to come up with a naming theme for our servers that solved all of the common naming problems, and decided on characters from popular TV shows. One of my favorites was our mail server, Claven (as in Cliff Claven, the mailman on Cheers). This was great until a new employee started work whose last name was Glaven. I suppose whatever theme you use, there is always the possibility of confusion.
This quote from the article stuck in my mind: "The Open Sores Movement asks us to ignore three decades of innovation. "
Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but it seems to me that most of the innovations in the computer industry in the last 30 years took place on UNIX machines. The Internet, the WWW, the GUI, the mouse, the workstation, the list goes on and on. I don't think Microsoft could continue to "innovate" unless there was a UNIX (or even an Apple) to steal from.
Has Microsoft innovated anything? Creating proprietary versions of something that already exists doesn't count as an innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any idea what it's like to feel that you're being opressed, and there isn't a thing in the world you can do about it? It grinds down your soul, until there is either nothing left, or you are forced to make a (often terrible) stand for what you believe in.
Yes, I know what it feels like. I am, after all, human. We ALL feel that way from time to time. Sometimes, however, there are people who are in a position of authority over us who are charged with the responsibility of teaching us, and guiding our development. When I was in school, if a teacher or principal demanded that I modify a certain behavior, I basically had two choices. Be guided.... or be defiant.
If a student makes it perfectly clear that they WILL NOT be taught, they have no real reason to be in school, and ought not be there to impede the learning of the students who are willing be taught.
Once again, we take a legitimate concern like bullying, and overreact such that anyone who feels the slightest bit offended by something someone else does screams "I'm being bullied!" Bullying is a real problem. To shout "Bully!" when someone in a position of authority exercises that authority, however, diminishes the real cases of bullying.
This kid made very public, albeit veiled threats of violence against the school administration simply because he "felt bullied." The threats were so veiled, I'm not really sure they cross the line. However, the administration has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the staff and student body in order to facilitate the primary mission, which is to advance student learning. They must, in many cases, use their best judgment in discerning what constitutes a threat of violence against the staff and/or student body.
The principal knows this kid, and his history. We, the random readers of Slashdot, do not. The principal is in the thick of this situation, whereas all we know is what one reporter has written about it. The principal is charged with the responsibility of protecting the school. We are not.
If this kid took it further, and actually did something to which he had been alluding, the argument would now be that the administration is inept for not taking action when he had clearly made threats. To prevent action simply based on the notion that the principal is "bullying" the kid is grotesque.
Give the principal the slack his position deserves.
.xxx was an interesting thought in figuring how to deal with the problem.
.xxx TLD... unless forced to do so (even then I would try to weasel my way out of that corral).
.xxx TLD initiative had passed, porn on the Internet would remain where it doesn't belong...all-pervasive and impossible to effectively block, because it would never be used...but at least they would have made their 'stand'. Well done.
Even a moment's thought shows that it is not a good idea at all.
If I'm a purveyor of smut, I don't want to be behind a blanket firewall. I want people to be able to sneak over to my site at will. I would never use the
If the
Jobs is getting old? He's 51. That's "old?"
Government regulated free speech is an oxymoron.
If the government decides who gets to speak, and about what, and how they are doing the speaking, how can that be called "free speech"? If I am barred by the federal government from hiring someone to get my message out, then the government has trampled on my constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
The "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with monetary cost. It's about a lack of interference from the government.
It goes like this:
"You can speak your mind about anything.... unless you're paying someone to help you do it, and it's about political subjects, then we must prevent you from speaking in order to guarantee your right to free speech".
Kinda like burning down the village in order to save it.
How stupid do they think I am?
When this DNA is implanted into an egg to fertilize it, and cell division begins, the entity at that moment is a new human being. It is at this point that the "doctors" will kill the new human being (in direct conflict with the hypocratic oath) to harvest its cells.
It's not difficult to understand.
I would agree with the assessment that XP gives "incredible stability".
in-cred-ible adj. 1 not credible 2 seeming too unusual to be possible --in-cred'ibil'ity n. --in-cred'ibly adv.
Yes, the desire for revenge is a factor.
There is a far more important factor however. The cause for which these monsters fought, whatever that may be, MUST be SET BACK as a result of their actions. To not do major damage to the cause which inspired their bloodthirsty mission is to invite more of the same. The world MUST see that to launch terrorist attacks (particularly against us) is to damage your own cause!
If those who gave the orders are still alive next month, terrorism has won, and will continue (apparantly unabated). We cannot not allow that.
President Bush's decision has nothing at all to do with preventing embryonic stem cell research. It only has to do with what the government uses the money it took from me (and the rest of American citizens).
Truth is, embryonic stem cell research was *already* illegal long before Bush took office. Oh yes. A law Bill Clinton signed already prohibits it, but that's not what President Bush's decision was about. It was merely saying that the government can't use the money it confiscates from the people to create new people whose only purpose is to die for scientific research.
I think he was right. The human beings who have already been created and killed may at least be used for scientific discovery, but no more of MY money should be spent growing people to be harvested.
This could be a related problem. I have a Handspring Visor, with a USB cradle. For awhile, my computer would reboot occasionally when I dropped the Visor into the cradle. This was a sudden hard boot. The OS (Win2K) didn't decide to shut down or anything, the screen just immediately would go black, followed by the BIOS POST, OS load, and so on. It only stopped happening when I replaced the cradle with a serial one.
It seems to me that phrases like "protecting our children" or "shielding them" are misleading.
One thing children are constantly doing is learning. When they are at school, they are (hopefully) learning. When they are playing in the park, they are learning. When they are with their friends, they are learning. And when they are browsing the Internet, they are learning. What do you, as parents, want them to learn? It is the duty of the parents to guide them in their education.
To not allow children to view certain objectionable sites (or read objectionable magazines, or watch objectionable TV) is a good way to help them to not be distracted learning garbage instead of something valuable.
People keep looking at the whole Napster debate as being about the people having some inherent right to listen to whatever music they want without having to pay those evil record companies.
That's not what it's about.
It's about the right of the creator of an artistic work to sell the product of their endeavor. Do I have the right to insist on being compensated for creating an album filled with musical works? Do I have the right to insist that if you don't want to pay for it, then you can't play my music? In this country (the U.S.), I do have that right.
It is the Napster users who trample on our rights!
I've seen a lot of posts in this thread knocking Linux's victory here because it doesn't have the best price/performance in the category.
It's my understanding that TPC-H is NOT a price/performance contest. It is a performance/1 contest!
Does TPC have a price/performance category? If so, let's look at the results of that category to argue price/performance.
TPC-H is about performance.
Please, somebody correct me if I'm mistaken about this.
Yeah, because we all know that the Linux Corporation has lots of extra money to throw around on bought-and-paid-for benchmarking tests. Companies with real integrity (like Microsoft) would never do something this transparent!
Irrelevant. The point is that Windows 2000 DOES have shares open by default, contrary to your assertion that "your average win2k install has nothing running". If it can be safely assumed that all of the open services are safe, then it doesn't matter how many services are open, and we all know that SMB/CIFS is perfectly (ahem) safe.
I'm voting Bush because he agrees with me on almost every issue, and he is a strong player in the party that agrees with me on almost every issue. The fact that he is an extremely honorable man makes me very comfortable in that choice.
Like most things on the internet, change is driven by demand. The US military began the whole thing, and there's just not enough demand to change it, so it stays. If enough people objected to it, it would be changed.
The first ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees (among other things) the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The right to voluntarily gather together for common purpose is fundamental to the American philosophy.
I cannot move a boulder alone, but if get some of my friends together, and we push the boulder together, we can get it done. The computer I typed this message on could not possibly have been created were it not for those "corporatists" gathering together to get it done. I know of no *individuals* who could possibly pull off such a feat alone.
Individualism? Bah! United we stand, divided we fall.
I was recently flying out of Manchester airport, and observed that one of the displays showing the passengers flight information, instead of showing this information had a Blue Screen Of Death. I thought to myself "Thank God they don't use Windows in the tower.... they don't, do they?". Bugs are only important if you expect to deploy in mission critical areas. I don't care if some telemarketer's desktop PC crashes, but Micros~1 is trying to move into markets where bugs will literally kill people.
The Geneva Convention is very important. Loading it up with nonsensical "protections" serves only to dilute it, and make it less credible. Nerve gas deserves to be banned. Hacking the enemy's computers does not.
WRT the concept that this kind of "attack" would invite similar reprisal, I say that we are already a target of opportunity for every nutcase out there. They need no further excuse to attack us.
The hypocrisey is that when some of George W's political enemies make some vague and totally unsubstantiated claim that he used cocaine long ago, he is then lebelled a "cocaine addict" from then on. Meanwhile there are several specific allegations by people (such as his own brother) who claim that they've wintessed Clinton doing cocaine on several occasions, and yet the press just ignores it or chalks it up to those wascally wepublicans trying to slander their hero.
We tried to come up with a naming theme for our servers that solved all of the common naming problems, and decided on characters from popular TV shows. One of my favorites was our mail server, Claven (as in Cliff Claven, the mailman on Cheers). This was great until a new employee started work whose last name was Glaven. I suppose whatever theme you use, there is always the possibility of confusion.
How about just calling it techonology? As opposed to Microsoft's supposed technology, which should be referred to as smoke and mirrors.
This quote from the article stuck in my mind: "The Open Sores Movement asks us to ignore three decades of innovation. "
Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but it seems to me that most of the innovations in the computer industry in the last 30 years took place on UNIX machines. The Internet, the WWW, the GUI, the mouse, the workstation, the list goes on and on. I don't think Microsoft could continue to "innovate" unless there was a UNIX (or even an Apple) to steal from.
Has Microsoft innovated anything? Creating proprietary versions of something that already exists doesn't count as an innovation.