Or maybe, prisons get the population they deserve.
You can be as relativist as you want, but it won't change the fact that the people in prison generally are bad.
Maybe you think rapists, thieves, and murders are good people, or worse yet, think that they are good people who do bad things (my sister used that one).
Really? Have you ever been to one, or is that just what you think it is like? I ask because you apparently don't know anything about the American correctional system.
Your little forced labor comment is the big clue. There is no forced labor. It was ruled unconstitutional.
Oh, and those dorms, they sound a lot like boot camp barracks.
Like so many in Europe respect the law. I hate to tell you this, but even your own governments don't respect the law.
You know why so many European countries opposed the Iraq war? It was because every single country that opposed the war had contracts with Hussein's government to start pumping and processing oil as soon as the trade restrictions were lifted.
Tell me, how do you explain the Paris riots if Europeans are so law-abiding?
Oh, and the kiddie porn industry. And, the thriving child prostitution industries in Eastern European countries, the customers of which are primarily Western Europeans?
Let's not forget drug use so massive that countries just give up on enforcing their laws.
This shithead was put in a prison camp with so much security that he was able to escape by simply getting into his wife's car and driving off.
He was serving a whopping 21 months in Club Fed. Vengeance, my ass.
I bet you are one of those stupid bleeding hearts that believes crime stems from low self-esteem. Here is a clue for you: After 20+ years of basing correction on the idea that criminals have low self-esteem, sociologists and psychologists actually tested the theory and found out that most, all most all, criminals have extremely high self-esteem.
Who ever modded you insightful should not be allowed to mod ever again.
That is irrelevant. Keeping critical system passwords in one's head is, at best, irresponsible. We are not talking about personal login accounts. We are talking about system management passwords.
It would be interesting to see what the actual business rules are for management of system passwords are. Many organizations require that system management passwords be recorded in a secure document.
Again, what if this jackass had been hit by a bus? Suddenly, the only person who knew those passwords is dead and the entire organization is screwed.
You keep trying to defend this unethical jackass, but there is no viable defense of what he did.
They are ACPI Compliant for Windows. You know, the operating system they support. They don't support Linux, so it doesn't matter if the ACPI tables are correct or not.
Now, just don't buy their products and everyone is happy.
You did not read, or maybe just did not understand, my previous post.
The jackass in this story was placed in a position of trust, changed passwords, did not record them, and then refused to give them up thereby denying access to those systems.
In my hypothetical situation, an accountant is placed in a position of trust, given authority to contol one's accounts, has all the information (passwords) to access the accounts while one does not, and then refuses to give the information thereby denying one access to one's accounts and funds.
In both situations, a person is placed in a position of trust, abuses that trust, then penalizes the person who placed said trust. In both situations, nothing is destroyed, but access is still denied.
One could attempt to sue, or use other legal means to get the files from the accountant, but the accountant would still have the ability to destroy the files, and he would be perfectly within his rights to do so, claiming he purged his files to protect the individual. The jackass apparently didn't write down the passwords and there is no way to force him to give up the passwords short of putting him in jail until he talks, and even that might not do it.
The big difference is that if both had died unexpectedly rather than been fired, one has a chance to recover one's information from the accountant's files. But, one would not be able to recover the passwords, because the jackass apparently didn't write them down or save them anywhere. Instead the passwords would die with him.
This quote shows your ignorance and willful stupidity:
Or Mexicans are treated like they're worthless drains on the society, when New Mexico's Hispanics are some of the most wealthy individuals in that state?
New Mexico is part of the United States. Mexico is not. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not the equivalent of American citizen from New Mexico. Yet, you act as though they are. Your comment is racist, and I bet you dont' even understand why.
The rest of your post is equally flawed. You need to grow up and get out into the real world, little girl. Until you do, you may as well just shut up because you are making a fool of yourself.
Well, they wrote about it in scary, ominous terms, and then promptly said that it didn't really say anything like the scary, ominous terms but rather put a requirement on the schools to verify who is actually doing the work and taking the tests.
And, you are right, they don't actually give any information as to the actual content of the bill or the number of the bill.
Yet Another Quack thinks he knows better than the rest of the scientists, then cherry-picks data for "proof".
And, the sad part is, people will believe him because they have been raised on fiction where a lone scientist knows something the rest of the "establishment" refuses to believe and ends up saving the world.
No, your suggestion was to get rid of laws so the people who broke those laws would no longer be criminals.
You are just another person who believes her particular vices should be legal and the things you don't like should be made illegal. In other words, you think the world should revolve around you.
The law requires that the on-line schools validate that the student is the one actually doing the work. The law does not specify any means of doing so.
The person who wrote the article should be fired for using an outrageous misleading headline and first paragraph to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
This is so dishonest that it doesn't qualify as journalism.
Your reasoning is flawed. Computer programs are the equivalent of Turing machines. Turing machines can be physical devices. Therefore, computer programs can be physical devices. However, not all Turing machines are physical devices. Some Turing machines are not physical devices. Therefore, there is no requirement for a Turing machine or a computer program to be a mechanical device. So, any argument that equates a computer program to a physical device is invalid.
It does not follow that because a computer program can be a physical device that all computer programs should be treated as physical devices.
If a computer program is NOT a physical device, then it should not be treated as a physical device.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, give me a break, asshole. Ok, you want to play, let's go.
What is moral about getting high? Come on dipshit, explain how getting high because you don't have a fucking life is moral.
Explain how people who are so fucking pathetic that in order to have a good time they have to take drugs are the same as civil rights protesters.
Come on, you worthless piece of shit, explain to me how getting high because you are fucking loser is a civil right.
You think getting high is a moral or civil right?
You think pot heads are the same as Rosa Parks?
You are a complete and utter moron. You should kill yourself to improve the gene pool.
If they are not bad people, why did they break the law? Do they think they are above or beyond the law?
Maybe they shouldn't break the fucking law, dumbass.
yeah, right. Whoever voted you insightful needs to have their modding right revoked.
That is just more stupid feminist pseudo-sociological bullshit.
HR would like to have a word with you about that joke you told. They said you should bring everything in your desk.
Or maybe, prisons get the population they deserve.
You can be as relativist as you want, but it won't change the fact that the people in prison generally are bad.
Maybe you think rapists, thieves, and murders are good people, or worse yet, think that they are good people who do bad things (my sister used that one).
Either you are a woman, or you don't date.
We pay for sex. It may not be a direct cash transaction, but pay for it we do. We pay for it in meals, movies, flowers, jewelry, etc.
They certainly have one.
Is it straight text? If so, does it have to remain straight text?
Do the overlords want to be able to identify who made the changes, or just verify the changes were made and made correctly?
Is there a reason the data is not in a DB, etc?
Different answers result in different solutions.
That would still require effort on their part.
This is not maliciousness or incompetence, it is just laziness.
They are doing things in the cheapest, easiest way possible.
Makes me wonder about the quality of their hardware.
Really? Have you ever been to one, or is that just what you think it is like? I ask because you apparently don't know anything about the American correctional system.
Your little forced labor comment is the big clue. There is no forced labor. It was ruled unconstitutional.
Oh, and those dorms, they sound a lot like boot camp barracks.
Like so many in Europe respect the law. I hate to tell you this, but even your own governments don't respect the law.
You know why so many European countries opposed the Iraq war? It was because every single country that opposed the war had contracts with Hussein's government to start pumping and processing oil as soon as the trade restrictions were lifted.
Tell me, how do you explain the Paris riots if Europeans are so law-abiding?
Oh, and the kiddie porn industry. And, the thriving child prostitution industries in Eastern European countries, the customers of which are primarily Western Europeans?
Let's not forget drug use so massive that countries just give up on enforcing their laws.
Oh, shut the fuck up.
This shithead was put in a prison camp with so much security that he was able to escape by simply getting into his wife's car and driving off.
He was serving a whopping 21 months in Club Fed. Vengeance, my ass.
I bet you are one of those stupid bleeding hearts that believes crime stems from low self-esteem. Here is a clue for you: After 20+ years of basing correction on the idea that criminals have low self-esteem, sociologists and psychologists actually tested the theory and found out that most, all most all, criminals have extremely high self-esteem.
Who ever modded you insightful should not be allowed to mod ever again.
That is irrelevant. Keeping critical system passwords in one's head is, at best, irresponsible. We are not talking about personal login accounts. We are talking about system management passwords.
It would be interesting to see what the actual business rules are for management of system passwords are. Many organizations require that system management passwords be recorded in a secure document.
Again, what if this jackass had been hit by a bus? Suddenly, the only person who knew those passwords is dead and the entire organization is screwed.
You keep trying to defend this unethical jackass, but there is no viable defense of what he did.
Actually, it is not incompetence.
They don't support Linux, so why bother doing anything to support Linux, such as updating the DSDT tables?
They are being true to their word. They don't support Linux.
They are ACPI Compliant for Windows. You know, the operating system they support. They don't support Linux, so it doesn't matter if the ACPI tables are correct or not.
Now, just don't buy their products and everyone is happy.
Are you sure it wasn't more like they fired him and then found out he had either destroyed or never wrote down the passwords?
The only problem with your post is that a much larger bunch of doctors have looked at the data and said "Yeah, we don't see evidence of a link."
It is not that this idea is "challenging the industry" It is that this idea is challenging the conclusions of the rest of the researchers.
Please hold still while I beat you to death with my copy of Burning Chrome.
You did not read, or maybe just did not understand, my previous post.
The jackass in this story was placed in a position of trust, changed passwords, did not record them, and then refused to give them up thereby denying access to those systems.
In my hypothetical situation, an accountant is placed in a position of trust, given authority to contol one's accounts, has all the information (passwords) to access the accounts while one does not, and then refuses to give the information thereby denying one access to one's accounts and funds.
In both situations, a person is placed in a position of trust, abuses that trust, then penalizes the person who placed said trust. In both situations, nothing is destroyed, but access is still denied.
One could attempt to sue, or use other legal means to get the files from the accountant, but the accountant would still have the ability to destroy the files, and he would be perfectly within his rights to do so, claiming he purged his files to protect the individual. The jackass apparently didn't write down the passwords and there is no way to force him to give up the passwords short of putting him in jail until he talks, and even that might not do it.
The big difference is that if both had died unexpectedly rather than been fired, one has a chance to recover one's information from the accountant's files. But, one would not be able to recover the passwords, because the jackass apparently didn't write them down or save them anywhere. Instead the passwords would die with him.
This quote shows your ignorance and willful stupidity:
Or Mexicans are treated like they're worthless drains on the society, when New Mexico's Hispanics are some of the most wealthy individuals in that state?
New Mexico is part of the United States. Mexico is not. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not the equivalent of American citizen from New Mexico. Yet, you act as though they are. Your comment is racist, and I bet you dont' even understand why.
The rest of your post is equally flawed. You need to grow up and get out into the real world, little girl. Until you do, you may as well just shut up because you are making a fool of yourself.
Well, they wrote about it in scary, ominous terms, and then promptly said that it didn't really say anything like the scary, ominous terms but rather put a requirement on the schools to verify who is actually doing the work and taking the tests.
And, you are right, they don't actually give any information as to the actual content of the bill or the number of the bill.
I hate dumbass reporters like this one.
Yet Another Quack thinks he knows better than the rest of the scientists, then cherry-picks data for "proof".
And, the sad part is, people will believe him because they have been raised on fiction where a lone scientist knows something the rest of the "establishment" refuses to believe and ends up saving the world.
No, your suggestion was to get rid of laws so the people who broke those laws would no longer be criminals.
You are just another person who believes her particular vices should be legal and the things you don't like should be made illegal. In other words, you think the world should revolve around you.
The law does not allow or require spy cameras.
The law requires that the on-line schools validate that the student is the one actually doing the work. The law does not specify any means of doing so.
The person who wrote the article should be fired for using an outrageous misleading headline and first paragraph to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
This is so dishonest that it doesn't qualify as journalism.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Computer programs are the equivalent of Turing machines.
Turing machines can be physical devices.
Therefore, computer programs can be physical devices.
However, not all Turing machines are physical devices. Some Turing machines are not physical devices.
Therefore, there is no requirement for a Turing machine or a computer program to be a mechanical device. So, any argument that equates a computer program to a physical device is invalid.
It does not follow that because a computer program can be a physical device that all computer programs should be treated as physical devices.
If a computer program is NOT a physical device, then it should not be treated as a physical device.