Amen. When the engineering staff generates more leads (which are then never followed up on, or closed) than the sales staff something is seriously wrong.
Maybe if a certain CEO (who shall remain nameless, but whose name begins with J and ends with ohn Ferguson) had spent more time driving the business and less time leering at his secretary we would've been able to keep the business in the black.
I see you decided to blow the parent's over generalization away with one of your own. Yes, sex is okay, but only for an extremely limited purpose under extremely limited conditions: for procreation within marriage. So premarital sex is bad, homosexual sex is bad, post-menopausal sex is bad, sex with an infertile partner is bad, sex with an already pregnant woman is bad, and of course, taking any pleasure in the act is also bad.
More ignorance masquerading as wisdom. Yes, it is within parameters, which I believe I deliniated in my post. Within the bounds of marriage, between a man and a woman. This idea of procreation only is baloney and has no basis in scripture. Taking pleasure in it is not only not bad, it's good (1 timothy 4:1-3, 1cor 7:5). We are supposed to take pleasure in God's creation. What I said was not a generalization, but a statement of fact about what christians believe based on the text of scripture. Anything beyond that comes from additions by men, and does not qualify as Christianity.
Nonsense. If porn objectifies and degrades women, it also degrades and objectifies men. You want sexist, degrading media? Check out just about any father on just about any modern sitcom.
It is not nonsense. It is readily observable reality simply by looking around at the results. The rest of your comment here I agree with. It does also objectify and degrade men, and yes, I would agree with you on the issue of sitcoms, and in fact was just having such a conversation about the tendancy within sitcoms to denigrate men just yesterday.
During the first trimester, a fetus is obviously not a person, and an abortion at any time for any reason by anyone should be allowed. And during the third trimester, a fetus obviously is a person and should not be aborted unless circumstances are extreme.
Fetus is "obviously" not a person eh? And why is this? Do you have an absolute definition of person that the rest of us have completely missed all this time, that could've ended this debate years ago?
What's obnoxious are the number of Christians and politicians who take the Bible literally, but only when it suits them.
It's hard to tell from this whether this is an accusation or not, but given the context I have to assume it is. Well, I take the bible literally wherever it was meant to be taken literally. The bible, like all literature, has the right to use literary forms to communicate. Some of the bible is parable, some is poetry, etc. Each has to be interpreted within its context and in the way it was intended to be used. If you have an example of where I have failed to take the bible literally where it speaks literally I'm all ears.
I do agree generally though, that many who call themselves christians, particularly politicians, have a habit of picking and choosing which verses suit their particular cause, whether the context would support their interpretation and usage or not, and ignoring the rest.
Yes, as 20 others harped on this subject, Job is not in Genesis. BFD. At least you argued his point rather than focusing on an irrelevant detail.
I did not consider it an irrelevant detail, given that he was putting forward his opinion as having merit, while this mistake demonstrated an obvious lack of familiarity with the topic he was commenting on. If someone came on here and made a long diatribe about American History and how all of our beliefs were bogus based on the writings of the founding father Oliver Cromwell in similar fashion his mistake damages his credibility, and therefore is relevant.
I recognize it's popular with many these days to suggest that everyone's opinion is equal. Well, it's not. Everyone has a/right/ to their own opinion, but that doesn't make it of equal value to someone who actually knows what they're talking about. My opinion on how the linux kernel should be written isn't worth a hill of beans over against say, Alan Cox. I simply don'
The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.
Bzzzt! Sorry but thank you for playing.
The christian faith believes that sex is good, not bad. It was created by God, and thus is by definition good. However, abusing it is not, which is the same as most good things we receive. Wine, for example, is good, but when abused it is not.
One of the manners in which sex is abused is through things like pornography and through sex outside of the covenant of marriage, yes. Not because there is something inherently bad about our bodies or about sex itself, but because such things are not sex, but an exploitation and abuse of it.
The viewing of pornography, like many other things, objectifies women, and degrades them in the eyes of those who consume it. It produces Lust, which is also an excess, an "abuse" (if you will) of the proper desire God has given us for our wives.
This is the actual Christian view. I admit there are many who turn this into "sex is bad" and try to make it what scripture teaches, but it is not. I'm also not saying you have to agree with it, nor am I saying I agree necessarly with this law (I haven't had time to look at it).
I, like you, despise the 'won't someone please think of the children' mentality. If you want to think about the children then start by thinking of your own and taking responsibility for them. It is the parents responsibility to be involved and I'm sick of lazy people trying to offload their personal responsibility on others, especially the government.
I do have to disagree with your definition of freedom. It is too broad. Freedom is allowing others to do whatever, regardless of your feelings on the matter, so long as their freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others.
This is the real debate with abortion. The real core of this fight, as I see it, comes down to the issue of the child. Is it alive, a person with rights and freedoms of its own or is it not. If it is, then abortion is an initiation of force against that child which violates its right to live. ("right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
Last, but not least, your obtuse comment on the bible as an authority on sexual morality. The bible records (in some books) history, particularly the history of the hebrew people in the old testament. Yes, there is sexual immorality there. There's even incest there. What were you expecting? These people were not perfect. They are not our example or model of behavior, and scripture while recording it, condemns their actions.
You speicifically mention job's daughters in Genesis, which I find rather amusing. Job's daughters are never even mentioned in Genesis, but only in Job, and the only thing mentioned about them is that they were killed. What sexual immorality are you inferring from this? Or are you perhaps referring to Noah's daughters? Who yes, sinned, and grievously. If this is your level of biblical knowledge then I think perhaps we should all pass on listening to you lecture on it.
The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.
Bzzzt! Sorry but thank you for playing.
The christian faith believes that sex is good, not bad. It was created by God, and thus is by definition good. However, abusing it is not, which is the same as most good things we receive. Wine, for example, is good, but when abused it is not.
One of the manners in which sex is abused is through things like pornography and through sex outside of the covenant of marriage, yes. Not because there is something inherently bad about our bodies or about sex itself, but because such things are not sex, but an exploitation and abuse of it.
The viewing of pornography, like many other things, objectifies women, and degrades them in the eyes of those who consume it. It produces Lust, which is also an excess, an "abuse" (if you will) of the proper desire God has given us for our wives.
This is the actual Christian view. I admit there are many who turn this into "sex is bad" and try to make it what scripture teaches, but it is not. I'm also not saying you have to agree with it, nor am I saying I agree necessarly with this law (I haven't had time to look at it).
I, like you, despise the 'won't someone please think of the children' mentality. If you want to think about the children then start by thinking of your own and taking responsibility for them. It is the parents responsibility to be involved and I'm sick of lazy people trying to offload their personal responsibility on others, especially the government.
I do have to disagree with your definition of freedom. It is too broad. Freedom is allowing others to do whatever, regardless of your feelings on the matter, so long as their freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others.
This is the real debate with abortion. The real core of this fight, as I see it, comes down to the issue of the child. Is it alive, a person with rights and freedoms of its own or is it not. If it is, then abortion is an initiation of force against that child which violates its right to live. ("right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
Last, but not least, your obtuse comment on the bible as an authority on sexual morality. The bible records (in some books) history, particularly the history of the hebrew people in the old testament. Yes, there is sexual immorality there. There's even incest there. What were you expecting? These people were not perfect. They are not our example or model of behavior, and scripture while recording it, condemns their actions.
You speicifically mention job's daughters in Genesis, which I find rather amusing. Job's daughters are never even mentioned in Genesis, but only in Job, and the only thing mentioned about them is that they were killed. What sexual immorality are you inferring from this? Or are you perhaps referring to Noah's daughters? Who yes, sinned, and grievously. If this is your level of biblical knowledge then I think perhaps we should all pass on listening to you lecture on it.
And don't forget the joy of having an application go through the whole install before giving you that wonderful "Error Number 6", at which point it dies w/out putting in any information about what it installed. Usually while still putting itself in the Add/Remove programs list, even though clicking the remove button will only give you an error.
So now you have an armload of files for software that doesn't work spewed all over your system, and every time it boots, you get an error message about junk it can't find. Yay.
Yes, I realize this can be cleaned up by digging into the registry and removing those runonce/etc entries, but that kind of gives lie to the whole "Windows Apps just work and are easy" proposition now doesn't it?
Could it be because, as has already been mentioned, jwz is a perpetual whiner? More than that, could it be because we really don't care if he, or anyone else, besides ourselves use it? While we're more than happy to spread the word about what we think is great in linux, I (at least) feel no compulsion to expect, or even hope that everyone, or even the majority of people, will switch.
More than that, I hope they don't. I'm more than happy to push most people Apple's way. It works, and it's more than sufficient for the average person. It is a hell of a lot more reliable than windows is, and for the average user that makes documents, browses the web, and reads email it's more than sufficient.
I know there are also people who use it for far more, more power to you. If that's your thing, knock yourself out. Sorry, I just don't feel some huge burden to woo you back to Linux.
Particularly since, most people in this group of whiners tend to be incompetant. Definitely not finding any motivation to dumb everything down for them. If that's what they want, there's already solutions out there for them. This might not be the case for JWZ, and given his background there's a good chance it isn't. I still don't care if he goes to OS-X. I don't even care if all of his apps die as a result. There's a good chance they won't, and that someone else will pick it up. But if they don't, frankly, none of them are a huge loss to me.
I'm not saying the guy accused of the crime shouldn't produce keys
I am. perhaps you should review the fifth amendment.
Sure, it's unpleasant now. Nobody wants someone like this to walk free (if he's guilty) but what about the guy who is innocently charged, but doesn't want his private files reviewed? Or those who might have something incriminating on another topic? You might say that's ok, he should go to jail then, but remember that laws are not always just.
If you're going to disagree with him, could you at least make an effort at a reasoned argument? Your one-liners aren't going to win any people over. The "Are you with the MPAA by chance" is tired if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us-rhetoric that doesn't advance the cause of sharing.
That wasn't a for us/against us comment, it was a reference to his weak grasp of logic, and poor argumentation being similar to that used by those groups. It has nothing to do with who he is for or against.
As for the one liners, when a post is that bad, and the topic has already been covered many times, it's not really worth wasting the time extensively explaining why.
Flawed analogy. Others have already pointed out the issues with what you're saying in regards to ability to modify your car.
In this case, it's not just about the hacking. If all they'd done was change their own code, nobody would've ever known, and there'd be no lawsuit. The issue is their distribution of how to do it.
Are you going to argue that it's illegal to write a book or article about how to modify your car? Or to sell the parts to do so?
Re:Replaced by: My gun didn't know me so I got kil
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
Blood or other materials on your hands something happening to your hands (burns, calluses, or just plain rubbing off of your prints
Not to mention that often a smart gun requires proper hand placement. There is a big difference between checking your guns proper operation when you're safe, and trying to get it to unlock while your life is in danger.
If you own a gun and are serious about it, you'll take a class. In that class they will drill you repeatedly about the most basic aspects of shooting, like the safety. We all laugh at movies where the actor "forgets" to take the safety off, but when your life is in danger, it's something you might not remember to do. And flicking off the safety is extremely simple and straightforward.
Now add to to that the need to make sure your hands address the sensors properly. Shyeah, that's something you want to be thinking about when you're in imminent danger.
Also, I don't know about these guns, but in the past, smart guns have been shown to be VERY unreliable. Hence the other posters commenting on the police being completely unwilling to use them. Other guns, such as the glock, or (especially so) revolvers are nearly 100% reliable. Glocks have been buried in the sand, left in sea-water, and all sorts of other horrible conditions, pulled out, and fired, with no jams or failures.
Now lets see a glock sit buried in wet sad or the bottom of a riverbed for a week and fire with a smartgun system in it.
I grant you that this is an unlikely scenario, but the point is the reason people buy guns like that is for their reliability. When your life depends on something, you want to know it's going to work. Let me ask you this, if someone proposed putting these 'smart sensor' devices on your brakes, would you be real comfortable with that? Would you want to depend on proper biometric identification every time you had to use the brakes in your car?
when you look at the fact that the vast majority of people haven't ever had their homes broken into, it seems pretty dumb to worry about it.
That's an interesting theory. I wonder, do you take that approach to everything? Most people haven't had their identity stolen, do you not bother with precautions for that? Do you take that approach with computer security as well? I mean, most people have never had their website cracked, so, why bother with firewalls, secured services, etc. Seems pretty dumb to worry about it.
Want to know why the rate of home invasions while the homeowner is home is so low in the US? Because of the high rate of firearms ownership. Breaking into a home is risky business, particularly if they're home. The people who do own firearms provide an umbrella of protection for those who do not.
What gets me, is that nobody is trying to force you to be responsible. Those of us who give the criminals pause, who have made the choice to do what it takes to protect our homes and our families ask nothing in return for the extra protection it affords you, except that you leave us alone. Not even for your thanks. We can't even get that.
Because if it is going to fail, you probably aren't going to know until you go to fire it. And if you're firing it, you, or someone else, is in a life or death situation. So, you're telling me that if you fail to fire it at the guy who is running at you with a knife you're now going to stop him with a threat? If you could do that why are you being forced to fire in the first place? Just having the weapon should be more than sufficient.
The only time this wouldn't be the case would be if there was some visible or audible method of determining if the gun was unlocked that the criminal could hear, in which case what you're saying might make some sense. However, how unbelievably stupid would a feature like that be? A "smart" gun is bad enough as it is, a smart gun that informs your assailant that you can't get it to work is just off the charts.
It'll cut down on problems where forged senders are the main symptom, dramatically. That both includes viruses ( virii ) and some spammers.
Yeah, IF you got adoption, it would cut down on some viruses. But the few that forge addresses would just adapt to use an email address on the machine in question. Which, in all likelihood, will be a valid one, sent from a valid ip address.
It used to be that spammers could use any domain they want. Now they can only use domains they own (assuming they're using SPF),
Wrong. Spammers using SPF just means other people can't use their domains to send spam. It doesn't mean they can't use other people's domains not protected by SPF.
Ciggarettes, on the other hand, that's just plain evil; cartoon camels, etc. Getting kids hooked on something that is so well known to mess up your health is inexcusable.
Yeah! I mean, what's the worst that can happen from a kid viewing porn? I mean, so they become a little promiscuous...sleep around...what's the worst that could happen?
oh yeah...aids.
No, this law was wrong for various reasons, but lets not be ignorant of the fact that porn is a negative influence on society.
Yeah, I used to work for one of the companies providing reverse proxy caching. Early on we had huge problems with getting bad results from AOL. The keystone tests through them were always worse than everywhere else.
Didn't take long to figure out they were blatantly ignoring the TTLs on the DNS Records. Calling them about it didn't yield us anything either.
The difference is, that we could sit down, make a plan, inspect all PCs, have stickers for OK machines, etc.
Oooh, that's a good one. I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Can't you just imagine a windows PC with a sticker for every time it had to have a patch applied to the OS? That's hilarious.
Sadly, I don't think it's a feasible concept. The whole reason we have patch rollout mechanisms is so that we don't have to go to/every/ pc to do the patch update. This would sorta defeat the purpose. And the stickers would only be amusing, since the tools are out there to do checks on your local net for patchlevels. (even free ones).
However, I still found your post hilarious. If I had mod points I'd mod you up funny.
One of the autoconfiguration features that CUPS provides to make life easier for the user was disabled! Now, maybe off should be the default, as a security measure, but from the point of view of ease of use, either the default should be on, or the user should be provided the opportunity to enable it during installation. I don't know whether the default was set by the CUPS people or the people who put together the distribution, but it seems to me that handling this kind of thing is exactly the role of the people who create distributions.
And here we go again. First, people bash redhat because they enable too many services by default, and complain because users shouldn't have to know how to secure their machines. So RedHat disables more stuff and people complain because they shouldn't have to know how to turn things on.
My point. The moron that screwed the initial configuration was me. Of course, it was my first Debian install. Maybe I screwed up in dselect. I don't know. What I do know is that Debian automagically put it in my startup scripts, and I didn't know that it would do that. Debian just gave a n00b more than enough rope to hang himself.
You see, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. The most popular Linux distros let you easily turn on all sorts of insecure things without so much as a warning.
Lets see. Just let me get this straight.
Linux sucks becaues it's too hard to use, and makes you learn things no user should ever need to know.
Linux also sucks because when you install a daemon, some of the distributions automatically set it up for you, making it easier to use.
One more thing, your choice of distribution has a lot to do with it. It isn't linux that started that automatically for you, it was the distribution. If you don't like that, choose a different distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if a certain CEO (who shall remain nameless, but whose name begins with J and ends with ohn Ferguson) had spent more time driving the business and less time leering at his secretary we would've been able to keep the business in the black.
Second Witness. I worked on the "dns hackery" team writing code to handle BGP routing data for determining the closest squid rack to the requester.
Small world. ;-)
/that/!
Yeah, when I saw the blurb I thought, what? How in the world could they twist the patent we worked on to do
Upon reading the patent I can understand how someone would come away thinking it covered more than it actually does. Stupid lawyers.
More ignorance masquerading as wisdom. Yes, it is within parameters, which I believe I deliniated in my post. Within the bounds of marriage, between a man and a woman. This idea of procreation only is baloney and has no basis in scripture. Taking pleasure in it is not only not bad, it's good (1 timothy 4:1-3, 1cor 7:5). We are supposed to take pleasure in God's creation. What I said was not a generalization, but a statement of fact about what christians believe based on the text of scripture. Anything beyond that comes from additions by men, and does not qualify as Christianity.
Nonsense. If porn objectifies and degrades women, it also degrades and objectifies men. You want sexist, degrading media? Check out just about any father on just about any modern sitcom.
It is not nonsense. It is readily observable reality simply by looking around at the results. The rest of your comment here I agree with. It does also objectify and degrade men, and yes, I would agree with you on the issue of sitcoms, and in fact was just having such a conversation about the tendancy within sitcoms to denigrate men just yesterday.
During the first trimester, a fetus is obviously not a person, and an abortion at any time for any reason by anyone should be allowed. And during the third trimester, a fetus obviously is a person and should not be aborted unless circumstances are extreme.
Fetus is "obviously" not a person eh? And why is this? Do you have an absolute definition of person that the rest of us have completely missed all this time, that could've ended this debate years ago?
What's obnoxious are the number of Christians and politicians who take the Bible literally, but only when it suits them.
It's hard to tell from this whether this is an accusation or not, but given the context I have to assume it is. Well, I take the bible literally wherever it was meant to be taken literally. The bible, like all literature, has the right to use literary forms to communicate. Some of the bible is parable, some is poetry, etc. Each has to be interpreted within its context and in the way it was intended to be used. If you have an example of where I have failed to take the bible literally where it speaks literally I'm all ears.
I do agree generally though, that many who call themselves christians, particularly politicians, have a habit of picking and choosing which verses suit their particular cause, whether the context would support their interpretation and usage or not, and ignoring the rest.
Yes, as 20 others harped on this subject, Job is not in Genesis. BFD. At least you argued his point rather than focusing on an irrelevant detail.
I did not consider it an irrelevant detail, given that he was putting forward his opinion as having merit, while this mistake demonstrated an obvious lack of familiarity with the topic he was commenting on. If someone came on here and made a long diatribe about American History and how all of our beliefs were bogus based on the writings of the founding father Oliver Cromwell in similar fashion his mistake damages his credibility, and therefore is relevant.
I recognize it's popular with many these days to suggest that everyone's opinion is equal. Well, it's not. Everyone has a /right/ to their own opinion, but that doesn't make it of equal value to someone who actually knows what they're talking about. My opinion on how the linux kernel should be written isn't worth a hill of beans over against say, Alan Cox. I simply don'
The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.
Bzzzt! Sorry but thank you for playing.
The christian faith believes that sex is good, not bad. It was created by God, and thus is by definition good. However, abusing it is not, which is the same as most good things we receive. Wine, for example, is good, but when abused it is not.
One of the manners in which sex is abused is through things like pornography and through sex outside of the covenant of marriage, yes. Not because there is something inherently bad about our bodies or about sex itself, but because such things are not sex, but an exploitation and abuse of it.
The viewing of pornography, like many other things, objectifies women, and degrades them in the eyes of those who consume it. It produces Lust, which is also an excess, an "abuse" (if you will) of the proper desire God has given us for our wives.
This is the actual Christian view. I admit there are many who turn this into "sex is bad" and try to make it what scripture teaches, but it is not. I'm also not saying you have to agree with it, nor am I saying I agree necessarly with this law (I haven't had time to look at it).
I, like you, despise the 'won't someone please think of the children' mentality. If you want to think about the children then start by thinking of your own and taking responsibility for them. It is the parents responsibility to be involved and I'm sick of lazy people trying to offload their personal responsibility on others, especially the government.
I do have to disagree with your definition of freedom. It is too broad. Freedom is allowing others to do whatever, regardless of your feelings on the matter, so long as their freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others.
This is the real debate with abortion. The real core of this fight, as I see it, comes down to the issue of the child. Is it alive, a person with rights and freedoms of its own or is it not. If it is, then abortion is an initiation of force against that child which violates its right to live. ("right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
Last, but not least, your obtuse comment on the bible as an authority on sexual morality. The bible records (in some books) history, particularly the history of the hebrew people in the old testament. Yes, there is sexual immorality there. There's even incest there. What were you expecting? These people were not perfect. They are not our example or model of behavior, and scripture while recording it, condemns their actions.
You speicifically mention job's daughters in Genesis, which I find rather amusing. Job's daughters are never even mentioned in Genesis, but only in Job, and the only thing mentioned about them is that they were killed. What sexual immorality are you inferring from this? Or are you perhaps referring to Noah's daughters? Who yes, sinned, and grievously. If this is your level of biblical knowledge then I think perhaps we should all pass on listening to you lecture on it.
The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality. Bzzzt! Sorry but thank you for playing. The christian faith believes that sex is good, not bad. It was created by God, and thus is by definition good. However, abusing it is not, which is the same as most good things we receive. Wine, for example, is good, but when abused it is not. One of the manners in which sex is abused is through things like pornography and through sex outside of the covenant of marriage, yes. Not because there is something inherently bad about our bodies or about sex itself, but because such things are not sex, but an exploitation and abuse of it. The viewing of pornography, like many other things, objectifies women, and degrades them in the eyes of those who consume it. It produces Lust, which is also an excess, an "abuse" (if you will) of the proper desire God has given us for our wives. This is the actual Christian view. I admit there are many who turn this into "sex is bad" and try to make it what scripture teaches, but it is not. I'm also not saying you have to agree with it, nor am I saying I agree necessarly with this law (I haven't had time to look at it). I, like you, despise the 'won't someone please think of the children' mentality. If you want to think about the children then start by thinking of your own and taking responsibility for them. It is the parents responsibility to be involved and I'm sick of lazy people trying to offload their personal responsibility on others, especially the government. I do have to disagree with your definition of freedom. It is too broad. Freedom is allowing others to do whatever, regardless of your feelings on the matter, so long as their freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others. This is the real debate with abortion. The real core of this fight, as I see it, comes down to the issue of the child. Is it alive, a person with rights and freedoms of its own or is it not. If it is, then abortion is an initiation of force against that child which violates its right to live. ("right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Last, but not least, your obtuse comment on the bible as an authority on sexual morality. The bible records (in some books) history, particularly the history of the hebrew people in the old testament. Yes, there is sexual immorality there. There's even incest there. What were you expecting? These people were not perfect. They are not our example or model of behavior, and scripture while recording it, condemns their actions. You speicifically mention job's daughters in Genesis, which I find rather amusing. Job's daughters are never even mentioned in Genesis, but only in Job, and the only thing mentioned about them is that they were killed. What sexual immorality are you inferring from this? Or are you perhaps referring to Noah's daughters? Who yes, sinned, and grievously. If this is your level of biblical knowledge then I think perhaps we should all pass on listening to you lecture on it.
You're wasting your breath. Guys like that never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.
Amen!
And don't forget the joy of having an application go through the whole install before giving you that wonderful "Error Number 6", at which point it dies w/out putting in any information about what it installed. Usually while still putting itself in the Add/Remove programs list, even though clicking the remove button will only give you an error.
So now you have an armload of files for software that doesn't work spewed all over your system, and every time it boots, you get an error message about junk it can't find. Yay.
Yes, I realize this can be cleaned up by digging into the registry and removing those runonce/etc entries, but that kind of gives lie to the whole "Windows Apps just work and are easy" proposition now doesn't it?
THere is a big difference between not having three deadbolts on the door and leaving your windows open.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."
Yeah, gee, I wonder why...
Could it be because, as has already been mentioned, jwz is a perpetual whiner? More than that, could it be because we really don't care if he, or anyone else, besides ourselves use it? While we're more than happy to spread the word about what we think is great in linux, I (at least) feel no compulsion to expect, or even hope that everyone, or even the majority of people, will switch.
More than that, I hope they don't. I'm more than happy to push most people Apple's way. It works, and it's more than sufficient for the average person. It is a hell of a lot more reliable than windows is, and for the average user that makes documents, browses the web, and reads email it's more than sufficient.
I know there are also people who use it for far more, more power to you. If that's your thing, knock yourself out. Sorry, I just don't feel some huge burden to woo you back to Linux.
Particularly since, most people in this group of whiners tend to be incompetant. Definitely not finding any motivation to dumb everything down for them. If that's what they want, there's already solutions out there for them. This might not be the case for JWZ, and given his background there's a good chance it isn't. I still don't care if he goes to OS-X. I don't even care if all of his apps die as a result. There's a good chance they won't, and that someone else will pick it up. But if they don't, frankly, none of them are a huge loss to me.
I am. perhaps you should review the fifth amendment.
Sure, it's unpleasant now. Nobody wants someone like this to walk free (if he's guilty) but what about the guy who is innocently charged, but doesn't want his private files reviewed? Or those who might have something incriminating on another topic? You might say that's ok, he should go to jail then, but remember that laws are not always just.
That wasn't a for us/against us comment, it was a reference to his weak grasp of logic, and poor argumentation being similar to that used by those groups. It has nothing to do with who he is for or against.
As for the one liners, when a post is that bad, and the topic has already been covered many times, it's not really worth wasting the time extensively explaining why.
Flawed analogy. Others have already pointed out the issues with what you're saying in regards to ability to modify your car.
In this case, it's not just about the hacking. If all they'd done was change their own code, nobody would've ever known, and there'd be no lawsuit. The issue is their distribution of how to do it.
Are you going to argue that it's illegal to write a book or article about how to modify your car? Or to sell the parts to do so?
Blood or other materials on your hands
something happening to your hands (burns, calluses, or just plain rubbing off of your prints
Not to mention that often a smart gun requires proper hand placement. There is a big difference between checking your guns proper operation when you're safe, and trying to get it to unlock while your life is in danger.
If you own a gun and are serious about it, you'll take a class. In that class they will drill you repeatedly about the most basic aspects of shooting, like the safety. We all laugh at movies where the actor "forgets" to take the safety off, but when your life is in danger, it's something you might not remember to do. And flicking off the safety is extremely simple and straightforward.
Now add to to that the need to make sure your hands address the sensors properly. Shyeah, that's something you want to be thinking about when you're in imminent danger.
Also, I don't know about these guns, but in the past, smart guns have been shown to be VERY unreliable. Hence the other posters commenting on the police being completely unwilling to use them. Other guns, such as the glock, or (especially so) revolvers are nearly 100% reliable. Glocks have been buried in the sand, left in sea-water, and all sorts of other horrible conditions, pulled out, and fired, with no jams or failures.
Now lets see a glock sit buried in wet sad or the bottom of a riverbed for a week and fire with a smartgun system in it.
I grant you that this is an unlikely scenario, but the point is the reason people buy guns like that is for their reliability. When your life depends on something, you want to know it's going to work. Let me ask you this, if someone proposed putting these 'smart sensor' devices on your brakes, would you be real comfortable with that? Would you want to depend on proper biometric identification every time you had to use the brakes in your car?
when you look at the fact that the vast majority of people haven't ever had their homes broken into, it seems pretty dumb to worry about it. That's an interesting theory. I wonder, do you take that approach to everything? Most people haven't had their identity stolen, do you not bother with precautions for that? Do you take that approach with computer security as well? I mean, most people have never had their website cracked, so, why bother with firewalls, secured services, etc. Seems pretty dumb to worry about it. Want to know why the rate of home invasions while the homeowner is home is so low in the US? Because of the high rate of firearms ownership. Breaking into a home is risky business, particularly if they're home. The people who do own firearms provide an umbrella of protection for those who do not. What gets me, is that nobody is trying to force you to be responsible. Those of us who give the criminals pause, who have made the choice to do what it takes to protect our homes and our families ask nothing in return for the extra protection it affords you, except that you leave us alone. Not even for your thanks. We can't even get that.
Because if it is going to fail, you probably aren't going to know until you go to fire it. And if you're firing it, you, or someone else, is in a life or death situation. So, you're telling me that if you fail to fire it at the guy who is running at you with a knife you're now going to stop him with a threat? If you could do that why are you being forced to fire in the first place? Just having the weapon should be more than sufficient.
The only time this wouldn't be the case would be if there was some visible or audible method of determining if the gun was unlocked that the criminal could hear, in which case what you're saying might make some sense. However, how unbelievably stupid would a feature like that be? A "smart" gun is bad enough as it is, a smart gun that informs your assailant that you can't get it to work is just off the charts.
Yeah, IF you got adoption, it would cut down on some viruses. But the few that forge addresses would just adapt to use an email address on the machine in question. Which, in all likelihood, will be a valid one, sent from a valid ip address.
Wrong. Spammers using SPF just means other people can't use their domains to send spam. It doesn't mean they can't use other people's domains not protected by SPF.
Yeah! I mean, what's the worst that can happen from a kid viewing porn? I mean, so they become a little promiscuous...sleep around...what's the worst that could happen? oh yeah...aids. No, this law was wrong for various reasons, but lets not be ignorant of the fact that porn is a negative influence on society.
Yeah, I used to work for one of the companies providing reverse proxy caching. Early on we had huge problems with getting bad results from AOL. The keystone tests through them were always worse than everywhere else.
Didn't take long to figure out they were blatantly ignoring the TTLs on the DNS Records. Calling them about it didn't yield us anything either.
Oooh, that's a good one. I just about fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Can't you just imagine a windows PC with a sticker for every time it had to have a patch applied to the OS? That's hilarious.
Sadly, I don't think it's a feasible concept. The whole reason we have patch rollout mechanisms is so that we don't have to go to /every/ pc to do the patch update. This would sorta defeat the purpose. And the stickers would only be amusing, since the tools are out there to do checks on your local net for patchlevels. (even free ones).
However, I still found your post hilarious. If I had mod points I'd mod you up funny.
Nobody is going to mention sniffit?
And here we go again. First, people bash redhat because they enable too many services by default, and complain because users shouldn't have to know how to secure their machines. So RedHat disables more stuff and people complain because they shouldn't have to know how to turn things on.
Lets see. Just let me get this straight.
Linux sucks becaues it's too hard to use, and makes you learn things no user should ever need to know.
Linux also sucks because when you install a daemon, some of the distributions automatically set it up for you, making it easier to use.
One more thing, your choice of distribution has a lot to do with it. It isn't linux that started that automatically for you, it was the distribution. If you don't like that, choose a different distribution.