Or you could ignore the permits as no one will ever know anyway.
As long as you don't try to sell your home, no one will know. But I guarantee you, a decent home inspector will discover it, and will determine that it wasn't done to "code". Which could mean that other corners were cut, which will almost certainly discourage buyers (not to mention you can't transfer title until everything is brought up to code, anyway). So now you're stuck with a house you can't sell. How's that gonna work out for you?
I'll happily concede that building codes are entirely too onerous in most cases, but they do serve a useful purpose, in theory: to make sure that people who don't know anything about construction don't get screwed over by shifty conmen.
Are you afraid of free staters that might take up arms to avenge the death of John Brown and end slavery? Of course not, because those groups don't exist anymore. Same with Christian abortionist bombers; there's no reason to fear they'll do anything since they've proven that they've changed their tactics.
If another Christian group starts blowing people up to advance their cause, you can fear them. But keeping a boogeyman alive long after its died just so you can say "Everyone's the same" is just politically correct tripe.
The difference is, the last time a Christian bombed an abortion clinic was over a decade ago. The last time a Muslim bombed innocents was, what?, last week?
It's not a question of tactics, it's a question of timeliness. Anti-abortion groups aren't using the tactics you're so upset about anymore. So stop living in the past and get over it.
I think that points to a trait that is strongly American - distrust of government, no matter who's in power. From what I've heard, other nations don't benefit from this as much.
He did what he thought was right, even if no one else would agree with him. He must have known there would be consequences to his actions. Hopefully he's prepared to accept whatever comes.
I don't know the man, and know only about this case what I've read on/. That said, the guys seems to have some serious mental problems, including possibly paranoia, not to mention the egomania you mentioned. It may very well be borderline personality disorder. If any of those assumptions are true, then he likely did not know what the consequences would be; he probably thought the people of the city would greet him with flowers and thanks, not toss his sorry ass in jail. Also, he would be incapable of accepting those consequences, and would just use his experience to validate his feelings of persecution ("I did the right thing and was arrested, look at what a martyr to my network I am.")
It can't be said often enough, this is a sad, sad, case, and everyone who reads about it should learn the important lesson: when your boss tells you to hand over the passwords, you do it, regardless of your opinion of him/her. Bad things happen to those who do not.
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, or your opinion of what fallacy I was using, it has to do with your complete lack of reading comprehension. Here's a hint: go back and reread the very last sentence in my original post. If you can't tell from that I'm being somewhat facetious, and using an absurd statement to advance my argument, then I can't help you.
Are you implying that we sink billions in tax dollars to new companies so they can compete with the giant corporations that exist today? Who would invest in that company?
No, and I didn't say anything of the sort. I was talking about the regulatory barriers to entry that exist that help prevent new cellular companies from forming. We need a better way to handle signal spectrum that doesn't prevent the little guy from enjoying his entrepreneurial spirit.
You're correct, but it's not the one you think it is. Look up reductio ad absurdum sometime.
You should also reread my original comment, and see if you can deduce what argument I'm making, exactly. Because it wasn't the one you were trying to refute.
If the owls wiped out the mice and starved to death, then the owls would not be thriving, would they? So then they wouldn't be an evolutionary success, would they?
I love it when people use examples that not only don't prove their point, but actively work against it.
look for a persuasive argument why Nancy and Ronald Reagan consulting fortune tellers and horoscopes might not be a good thing when Ron's got his finger on the nuclear button.
Did Reagan launch any nukes during the 80's? No? Then your argument is completely flawed. In fact, since he didn't launch after consulting fortune tellers, it would appear that using fortune tellers actually helps prevent nuclear annihilation. Or maybe I'm just being superstitious in seeing that cause and effect.
Wiping out most species on the planet has to qualify as an evolutionary step backwards.
It's almost like you've never read any Darwin or Dawkins, whatsoever. As long your species thrives, you're an evolutionary success, regardless of what happens to other species. In fact, if you beat other species at the game of survival, you're an unqualified success. So, no, wiping out other species by theoretically "pushing the button" is not an evolutionary step backward.
Actually, you've already implied what the free market solution is: remove the barrier to entry that's stopping competition in the first place! The government has to do a better job of allocating radio spectrum that's usable by cell phone providers so that new companies can rise up to provide competition against the large providers.
But of course a Democrat politician looks at this and thinks, we need more government oversight. I won't be voting for McCain/Palin, but at least they get it right when they say "Government is not the solution, it's the problem."
An automated submission editor would notice that the same story had been posted previously, so it would take about two days before someone realized the bots were running the show.
These people are already blind. Do we really have to rape them?
People with disabilities encounter problems with everyday common objects and have special needs. News at 11.
My guess is, there are already charities or government programs set up to help offset the costs of things like this. You'd have to be blind to miss them.
File Permissions: When the web server asks to write cookie, browser uses file permissions to create a group for that site, and allows only members of that group to read or write to that cookie. Either use the disk filesystem's permissioning, or reimplement a permissioning system within the browser profile, to be used only for cookies.
Requires giving the browser root access to the system (though you can mitigate this by running a jail or sandbox).
File Encryption: Using a public key encryption method, the content of cookie file is encrypted using the web site's private encryption key, and can only be decrypted by the web server.
I thought that's what SSL cookies do in the first place?
Because most sites don't use SSL to begin with. That said, they should at least include the line in the settings.py file, with a comment to set it to True if you use SSL.
Second, if you were a sys admin in my organization you'd better be in highschool still, or I'd fire you for this post. You are proposing an over-reactive, uninformed, knee-jerk reaction that I expect from a 15 year old in his moms basement playing with Linux. Proactive is one thing, changing something that works perfectly just because a developer is no longer working on it is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. How can you use computers? How many of the original engineers that designed your processor STILL work on the design? How many developers that wrote code that you use from Linux are STILL working on Linux? Why are you still using Linux since they've left and that code may never get worked on again? The same applies to pretty much every single object created by man.
Oh my god, you're right, I'm an idiot for not wanting to use software or systems that don't have support contracts available. Whatever was I thinking? It's so much better to work like a cowboy and keep everything running with spit and bailing wire until it falls apart, then fix things.
What in my original post said that everything should be ripped out next Friday? Plan it out, and if you have hardware or OS refreshes in the future, do it then. If you don't, find a time that fits your other organizational needs. But don't wait until the system breaks and do it in a sudden rush and panic, plan ahead so that fires don't start in the first place. Why would you even argue against that approach? Do you like getting pages at 2am in the morning? I sure as hell don't, and if you ran your shop that way I wouldn't work for you, in the first place (though I might try to take your job away by going to your boss and pointing out your flaws).
Let me guess, you've never been responsible for more than a few hundred systems at a time, have you? Go run multiple datacenters with thousands of servers, then tell me how willing you are to use something that doesn't have support available.
And to be clear, this isn't just "one developer" who's no longer available, it's the owner of the company and in all likelihood the company won't exist for much longer. If he had structured it as a corporation and transferred his shares to trusted employees, it would be a non-issue. But he failed to mitigate the risk that he would not always be at the helm, and now his customers are screwed. Or did you not recognize that point, either? Because with your years of experience in risk management, it should've been plainly obvious.
The worst thing that could happen is ReiserFS slowly falling into disuse and becoming deprecated in three or four years, you will have plenty of time to worry about this later, just take a deep breath and put down your file system tools, this will all be OK.
There are two problems with this:
1: That's not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is someone discovers a critical flaw in the filesystem that suddenly puts your data at risk. Yes, I know, this isn't likely with filesystems, but it is at least theoretically possible. Which makes it the "worst case".
2: You're proposing a reactive method of systems administration. This might be fine for a hobbyist who doesn't care about his system(s), but for a production environment this is playing with fire. You know that support for ReiserFS will disappear (unless you know for a fact that another person/group has stepped up to provide support); why wait until the last possible second, when you'll only have more work to do, to migrate your systems to a new filesystem? Don't put off to tomorrow that which can be done today.
It does on any issues that crop up in the applications using the locally compiled Perl. What's so stupid about a vendor not supporting something you compiled yourself?
AFAIK, china is the only civilization that hand endured for thousands of years without major interruptions. maybe US could learn something from them before this current decadence proccess becomes irreversible.
Depends on what you mean "major interruptions". China was colonized pretty extensively by Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, and by Japan in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's only been in the fifty or sixty years that they've rejoined the rest of the world, and still most of their immense population lives little better than people did 500 years ago. They haven't had the exact same kind of turmoil that's rocked other civilizations, but don't think they've avoided being very close to ruin themselves on more than one occasion.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could ignore the permits as no one will ever know anyway.
As long as you don't try to sell your home, no one will know. But I guarantee you, a decent home inspector will discover it, and will determine that it wasn't done to "code". Which could mean that other corners were cut, which will almost certainly discourage buyers (not to mention you can't transfer title until everything is brought up to code, anyway). So now you're stuck with a house you can't sell. How's that gonna work out for you?
I'll happily concede that building codes are entirely too onerous in most cases, but they do serve a useful purpose, in theory: to make sure that people who don't know anything about construction don't get screwed over by shifty conmen.
Are you afraid of free staters that might take up arms to avenge the death of John Brown and end slavery? Of course not, because those groups don't exist anymore. Same with Christian abortionist bombers; there's no reason to fear they'll do anything since they've proven that they've changed their tactics.
If another Christian group starts blowing people up to advance their cause, you can fear them. But keeping a boogeyman alive long after its died just so you can say "Everyone's the same" is just politically correct tripe.
So posting the images of an abortion is terrorism, but the act of abortion itself is OK? Interesting.
The difference is, the last time a Christian bombed an abortion clinic was over a decade ago. The last time a Muslim bombed innocents was, what?, last week?
It's not a question of tactics, it's a question of timeliness. Anti-abortion groups aren't using the tactics you're so upset about anymore. So stop living in the past and get over it.
I think that points to a trait that is strongly American - distrust of government, no matter who's in power. From what I've heard, other nations don't benefit from this as much.
FTFY. :)
He did what he thought was right, even if no one else would agree with him. He must have known there would be consequences to his actions. Hopefully he's prepared to accept whatever comes.
I don't know the man, and know only about this case what I've read on /. That said, the guys seems to have some serious mental problems, including possibly paranoia, not to mention the egomania you mentioned. It may very well be borderline personality disorder. If any of those assumptions are true, then he likely did not know what the consequences would be; he probably thought the people of the city would greet him with flowers and thanks, not toss his sorry ass in jail. Also, he would be incapable of accepting those consequences, and would just use his experience to validate his feelings of persecution ("I did the right thing and was arrested, look at what a martyr to my network I am.")
It can't be said often enough, this is a sad, sad, case, and everyone who reads about it should learn the important lesson: when your boss tells you to hand over the passwords, you do it, regardless of your opinion of him/her. Bad things happen to those who do not.
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, or your opinion of what fallacy I was using, it has to do with your complete lack of reading comprehension. Here's a hint: go back and reread the very last sentence in my original post. If you can't tell from that I'm being somewhat facetious, and using an absurd statement to advance my argument, then I can't help you.
Are you implying that we sink billions in tax dollars to new companies so they can compete with the giant corporations that exist today? Who would invest in that company?
No, and I didn't say anything of the sort. I was talking about the regulatory barriers to entry that exist that help prevent new cellular companies from forming. We need a better way to handle signal spectrum that doesn't prevent the little guy from enjoying his entrepreneurial spirit.
You are committing a logical fallacy.
You're correct, but it's not the one you think it is. Look up reductio ad absurdum sometime.
You should also reread my original comment, and see if you can deduce what argument I'm making, exactly. Because it wasn't the one you were trying to refute.
If the owls wiped out the mice and starved to death, then the owls would not be thriving, would they? So then they wouldn't be an evolutionary success, would they?
I love it when people use examples that not only don't prove their point, but actively work against it.
look for a persuasive argument why Nancy and Ronald Reagan consulting fortune tellers and horoscopes might not be a good thing when Ron's got his finger on the nuclear button.
Did Reagan launch any nukes during the 80's? No? Then your argument is completely flawed. In fact, since he didn't launch after consulting fortune tellers, it would appear that using fortune tellers actually helps prevent nuclear annihilation. Or maybe I'm just being superstitious in seeing that cause and effect.
Wiping out most species on the planet has to qualify as an evolutionary step backwards.
It's almost like you've never read any Darwin or Dawkins, whatsoever. As long your species thrives, you're an evolutionary success, regardless of what happens to other species. In fact, if you beat other species at the game of survival, you're an unqualified success. So, no, wiping out other species by theoretically "pushing the button" is not an evolutionary step backward.
Actually, you've already implied what the free market solution is: remove the barrier to entry that's stopping competition in the first place! The government has to do a better job of allocating radio spectrum that's usable by cell phone providers so that new companies can rise up to provide competition against the large providers.
But of course a Democrat politician looks at this and thinks, we need more government oversight. I won't be voting for McCain/Palin, but at least they get it right when they say "Government is not the solution, it's the problem."
An automated submission editor would notice that the same story had been posted previously, so it would take about two days before someone realized the bots were running the show.
These people are already blind. Do we really have to rape them?
People with disabilities encounter problems with everyday common objects and have special needs. News at 11.
My guess is, there are already charities or government programs set up to help offset the costs of things like this. You'd have to be blind to miss them.
File Permissions: When the web server asks to write cookie, browser uses file permissions to create a group for that site, and allows only members of that group to read or write to that cookie. Either use the disk filesystem's permissioning, or reimplement a permissioning system within the browser profile, to be used only for cookies.
Requires giving the browser root access to the system (though you can mitigate this by running a jail or sandbox).
File Encryption: Using a public key encryption method, the content of cookie file is encrypted using the web site's private encryption key, and can only be decrypted by the web server.
I thought that's what SSL cookies do in the first place?
Because most sites don't use SSL to begin with. That said, they should at least include the line in the settings.py file, with a comment to set it to True if you use SSL.
I love that your comment is now modded +5 Funny. Definitely says something about the overall cynicism of Slashdotters.
Second, if you were a sys admin in my organization you'd better be in highschool still, or I'd fire you for this post. You are proposing an over-reactive, uninformed, knee-jerk reaction that I expect from a 15 year old in his moms basement playing with Linux. Proactive is one thing, changing something that works perfectly just because a developer is no longer working on it is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. How can you use computers? How many of the original engineers that designed your processor STILL work on the design? How many developers that wrote code that you use from Linux are STILL working on Linux? Why are you still using Linux since they've left and that code may never get worked on again? The same applies to pretty much every single object created by man.
Oh my god, you're right, I'm an idiot for not wanting to use software or systems that don't have support contracts available. Whatever was I thinking? It's so much better to work like a cowboy and keep everything running with spit and bailing wire until it falls apart, then fix things.
What in my original post said that everything should be ripped out next Friday? Plan it out, and if you have hardware or OS refreshes in the future, do it then. If you don't, find a time that fits your other organizational needs. But don't wait until the system breaks and do it in a sudden rush and panic, plan ahead so that fires don't start in the first place. Why would you even argue against that approach? Do you like getting pages at 2am in the morning? I sure as hell don't, and if you ran your shop that way I wouldn't work for you, in the first place (though I might try to take your job away by going to your boss and pointing out your flaws).
Let me guess, you've never been responsible for more than a few hundred systems at a time, have you? Go run multiple datacenters with thousands of servers, then tell me how willing you are to use something that doesn't have support available.
And to be clear, this isn't just "one developer" who's no longer available, it's the owner of the company and in all likelihood the company won't exist for much longer. If he had structured it as a corporation and transferred his shares to trusted employees, it would be a non-issue. But he failed to mitigate the risk that he would not always be at the helm, and now his customers are screwed. Or did you not recognize that point, either? Because with your years of experience in risk management, it should've been plainly obvious.
The worst thing that could happen is ReiserFS slowly falling into disuse and becoming deprecated in three or four years, you will have plenty of time to worry about this later, just take a deep breath and put down your file system tools, this will all be OK.
There are two problems with this:
1: That's not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is someone discovers a critical flaw in the filesystem that suddenly puts your data at risk. Yes, I know, this isn't likely with filesystems, but it is at least theoretically possible. Which makes it the "worst case".
2: You're proposing a reactive method of systems administration. This might be fine for a hobbyist who doesn't care about his system(s), but for a production environment this is playing with fire. You know that support for ReiserFS will disappear (unless you know for a fact that another person/group has stepped up to provide support); why wait until the last possible second, when you'll only have more work to do, to migrate your systems to a new filesystem? Don't put off to tomorrow that which can be done today.
Yes, the War on Drugs has worked tremendously well, let's try the same approach with spam. What could possibly go wrong?
If only there were a form that might demonstrate the futility of nearly any anti-spam device or measure....
Does anyone not use Google (for example) because of their privacy policy, or their use of beacons?
I know this one guy who doesn't. I can't reveal his name due to privacy concerns, however.
It does on any issues that crop up in the applications using the locally compiled Perl. What's so stupid about a vendor not supporting something you compiled yourself?
Simple: the story was posted by kdawson and doesn't accuse Republicans of eating babies. Therefore, it's non-partisan.
AFAIK, china is the only civilization that hand endured for thousands of years without major interruptions. maybe US could learn something from them before this current decadence proccess becomes irreversible.
Depends on what you mean "major interruptions". China was colonized pretty extensively by Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, and by Japan in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's only been in the fifty or sixty years that they've rejoined the rest of the world, and still most of their immense population lives little better than people did 500 years ago. They haven't had the exact same kind of turmoil that's rocked other civilizations, but don't think they've avoided being very close to ruin themselves on more than one occasion.