Until you learn the difference between a group, Slashdot, and its individual members, you deserve to be ignored and down-moded.
In case you meant this seriously, let me point out a few differences between the two, that could explain people's differing opinions.
1) The GPL license lets you use and view content as you wish, unlike the NYT's license.
2) The GPL is, for many, an intermediate step to getting rid of, or significantly weakening copyright law. As such, the only violations that matter are those of entities that wish to tighten or prolong undue control.
3) Privacy. The goal isn't to avoid banners at the NYT, it's to avoid the need to register so they know who views which stories, and can build profiling databases. The GPL can be complied with anonymously.
4) Ownership. The NYT is big-media, they are part of an industry that seeks to control what people think by controlling what they hear. It is important to read what they say, if only to know what disinformation is being sown. The GPL is essentially about lack of ownership and freedom of use.
5) There's a difference between creative and factual content. Nobody NEEDS creative content, but people require factual content. (Few people are reposting the NYT content, just enabling people to read it.)
But, above all, remember that Slashdot is not a singular entity. Some members love MS and own much stock, others think BG is the anti-christ and strive to harm his business interests in any way possible. This is NOT a contradiction, different people have different views.
I have heard that this is the favorite brand of pedophiles. Children have been brainwashed for years that these cookies contain more chocolate. This makes them more vulnerable to snack-food related bribery when these cookies are used.
Clearly, for the children, we need to ban cookies. And chief among cookies is Chips Ahoy(tm), the devil's brand.
Try again.
(As a side note, a virgin Jerry Falwell was coerced into performing sexual acts with his mother, in an outhouse, by Chips-Ahoy related temptation. It's true, I read it in Hustler.)
Ok, where in the old-forest section does it tell of, let alone explain, Tom Bombadil's elvish name?
Uh huh.
It wasn't until after I read the trilogy and was discussing it with my friends who are serious Tolkein-heads that I discovered all the details about Bombadil. Until then, I thought it was a too-long interlude in a section in desperate need of editing, and it focused on a character who had trouble being coherent. Yawn.
Now, if you focused on that and spent a while, you might do it justice, but really, talking about the Elvish name of a character, and their place in the cosmos, before you actually meet an elf even, is kinda silly.
I think Tolkein's books are best read the second time, after you've read everything else he's written at least once. Unfortunately, the movie can't do it.
But, all hope is not lost, for purists such as yourself... I heard a rumor (said to be fairly accurate) that the movies were ~2 hours for theatre, but the DVD was going to come with that version and a directors cut with an extra hour, all the little snipped bits that they didn't think would play well for the lay-person.
Now, that's likely going to mostly be 30s bits here and there, that they chopped for pacing, but it might also include some scenes which were shot but later cut. And one of those might be Bombadil.
I don't think they'd have shot it, if they planned to not use it, but they might have shot it early on and cut it early.
I didn't see an actor playing Bombadil, so it's not terribly likely, but might be worth paying attention.
It means this: Call it what you will, that doesn't change what it really is.
RealityMaster seems to think that if he calls slavery something else, that it changes it. How is that supposed to work? It's still people being forced to work, and held in captivity with threats of death or violence.
"You don't reinstall after a root compromise? What sort of admin are you?"
Did I say that I wouldn't? That's a red herring.
"There is NO excuse for waiting three months with an open root compromise though."
Sure, but you could also firewall it as soon as details of the exploit got out. If, MS released details on what their fixes do. (They do to a degree, if you want to dig deep in MSDN, but often even then, it's only barely documented.)
Just today I had a case of a hotfix screwing things up.
I can't remember what it's called exactly, drive mapping fix, or something. One of our low-level techs was doing some routine upgrades on some 98SE machines, applying critical updates and such. They'd been in storage for a year, so there was a lot. He tested our drivers, then started updating. After every step he tested them again (it's a network card, simply connecting to download the next update is testing.) When he installed that last 'update' it hosed the computer. It wouldn't get to the login screen, in regular or safe-mode.
Essentially toast. Was quicker to re-install the OS than fight with it. Gotta love how that's always the answer with MS software. Reboot, if that doesn't work, reinstall.
He tested that hotfix by ghosting the drive after the reinstall and trying that update again, it hosed it in the same way. Even without any custom drivers (he reverted to a 3com NIC) in the way.
That's an all-to regular occurance in windows. Taking basic safety-precautions can reduce those problems (ghost the system before each round of changes, change one system, then do the rest later, etc) but they're still there, to be worked around.
Which is why a lot of admins go the firewall route. When friends of mine who work at an ISP saw that customers parked servers were getting probed by code-red (when code-red showed up on/. basically) they firewalled them all and ended up without having any customers infected, despite most of the boxes being unpatched NT/2k.
You can't firewall everything, but most IIS buffer exploits you can.
One of the early NT service packs was called the SP-of-Death. Even recently... Remeber SP6? Nope. It was pulled rather quickly and replaced with 6a (which is often referred to as 6) because it caused a ton of problem for Notes users.
Direct-X 7.0 was buggy and toasted a few systems, but couldn't be uninstalled.
MS has a long history of playing games with patches. Often they don't release patches, forcing an "upgrade" to a later version, other times they release a "patch" that (intentionally?) breaks other companies software.
Decent admins don't install MS patches until they've seen them in action and could evaluate them. The proper action with CRed and Nimda isn't to rush to patch the server, but to change the firewall to prevent malicious requests. To do otherwise is to risk having to reinstall the OS (without the patch) to get your servers working again.
So our society has determined that slavery is wrong for everybody.
So, it's a relative absolute.
You really shouldn't be arguing in this, you're in over your head. You can't simply change the definition of absolute to suit yourself. Absolute morals can NOT exist without religion. If you're saying morals are absolute, you're saying that there's a universal law which mandates it, the only way that's possible is if there's a god doing the mandating.
Now, I know you're not saying there's a universal law, but this means you're not talking about absolute morals, even if you think you are. If a society has decided something, then it wasn't absolute.
What you're talking about is strictly enforced relative morals. Society X has decided that slavery is bad, and there are no exceptions. Only the last part is absolute, the first part is relative.
Furthermore, these morals of our society aren't even enforced absolutely. Murder is wrong, except when a cop shoots a lawbreaker, or you execute a criminal, etc. Slavery is wrong, except when you put prisoners to work. And it's not different just because they're criminals. Absolute in this sense means 100%, no exceptions. If there are exceptions, it's not absolute.
You were closer with your "laws of physics" idea, than with the point you're trying to make.
I still use WinNT Workstation at work. It'd be the original 5-year old install, except that the HD it was on barfed.
For gaming I use 2k at home because 98 started to piss me off (and Millenium is a joke) but at work I don't need USB or Direct X, which are imho the two main differences. It also means I'm fairly happy on a 233MMX with 128MB, except when I do compiles. That wouldn't cut it for a 2k machine.
Actually, the parent post was right. Win NT Workstation and Server were identical. All system files were exactly the same. The difference between them was two registry settings, which you couldn't change while the OS was running.
These settings created "hundreds of differences" to the running OS, but these were all run-time settings.
For example, as you pointed out, Workstation was deliberately crippled so that it couldn't handle more then ten simultaneous connections. Workstation was more than capable of it (as much as an Win NT) but it wasn't allowed to.
Later they started making these changes via #define statements in the code. It was essentially the same thing, but they could point to different executables to show that they weren't the same.
That's when MS lost any chance of ever selling to the really big businesses. Nobody wants to buy software which you aren't allowed to use. WinNT Workstation is exactly that. The main difference between it and Server is the license "agreement".
When you buy a OS (and computer) from other companies, they let you do anything you want with it. Want to run one user, or one thousand? Fine. (They might require a client-license for whatever you're running for each terminal, but the OS itself is capable of doing it.)
(WinNT Server shipped with more utils, but all extras, that you didn't really need to run the system.)
If it makes someone whose relative was killed, feel better to watch the terrorist be eaten alive by ants, or whatever, why does it matter? Sure, it's cruel, but so is killing thousands. I just don't see it as a big deal. Who are you to say your culture of never hurting anyone is better than mine? Ours is the only culture on earth that wouldn't torture terrorists, why are they all wrong?
"End their culture? Fuck why don't you just gas them..."
Because it's the culture, not the people, that's the problem. As long as they hold onto that culture, they won't be able to fit into the western world which, right now, is the center of the world. Being that I think as people, they are valuable, I'd like to get rid of that which holds them back.
If their culture and religion survive, we'll have more of these attacks, and sooner or later, someone will use nukes out of frustration, killing millions of innocents.
(Not that christianity is good, I'd wipe it out too if I could.)
"But logicly, an increase in security would happen as well."
How do you propose to put 100,000 people in that small of an area and have any reasonable guarantee of security? A dump-truck filled with explosives could crash through any barrier and take the building out, a cruise-missile, a jet that made it past the fighters...
You'd have to have a 100% success rate to ensure those people weren't killed, the terrorists would only have to succeed once.
And then, if they do take it out, you'd just rebuild bigger, making it worth their bringing in a nuke and taking them out all over again.
Give it up, the era of big buildings is OVER. Think of this disaster as the titanic of large buildings, it's where the public realizes that it's insane to pack people into something that'll take two hours or more to fully evacuate. A simple fire on the 30th floor could have done this too, because they can't extinguish anything properly above the 20th or so. These buildings are an obsolete idea.
"And they always will if everybody just sits back and does nothing about it"
See my past posts, I'm doing anything but advocating war. If we do invade, we need to make them a protectorate, not a smoking pile of rubble.
What's wrong with torture? I don't really think someone who'd kill thousands of people (or mastermind it) is worth worrying about. Why do they deserve kind treatment?
Re: "But if you think that is a good reason not to help a country in need."
No, I think we should help them, I just think we should end their culture and religion, both are obsolete and they'd be better off without them.
At the same time as we help them rebuild, and setup schools, etc, we'll undermine their culture. The religion will take care of itself, educated people give it up.
Re: Rebuilding the towers - "How are you supposed to fight..."
Simple. Keep blowing up the towers, as you kill more and more people. They'll run out of towers, planes, and people, before the terrorists will.
Re: "The only thing that is going to come..."
I agree. The US foreign policy has always been stupid, and the US leaders are always willing to carpet-bomb enemy civilians to placate the American public.
You send the baywatch episodes because it's directly against their religion and culture, yet seductive.
If they see people doing "immoral" things and not being killed for it, and see women as valid members of society, then they'll be less likely to accept a religion or culture which disagrees.
It's not enough to simply have them self-governing, we need to remove the influences that cause these sort of attacks.
I'd like to stamp out other religions while we were at it, but unfortunately, we won't have the opportunity. Religion and oppressive culture are to blame for this attack.
No, that would be if we took three planes with innocent hostages and crashed them into buildings full once again of innocents, killing over five thousand.
Torturing terrorists might not make you a "nice" guy, but you'd have a long way to go before you sunk to their level.
"They only way to teach them a lesson it to build 3 towers, and make them taller."
Oh yeah, make them even bigger, so they take even longer to evacuate. Doom even more people to a quick fiery death the next time terrorists want to make a statement.
"Then give aid to all the arab countries that need it. That's something they can't fight."
That's the good idea. Send a ton of aid, build schools, send baywatch episodes. The idea being make them indebted to us (but not financially). And, while at it, destroy their culture and religion. Their culture is flawed (women as second-class citizens is okay) and their religion is the cause of this whole mess. (As is all religion, but we might as well start there...)
1) Microsoft could easily turn services off by default. No user needs a webserver unless they have content to serve. If they don't know where the content goes, they don't need the server. They could have put a 'Web Server' config pluggin in the control panel. People are capable to using the control panel (or the shortcuts) to change the screen background, or at least don't raise hell when they can't. They'd be able to turn on a webserver, or wouldn't realize that it was there...
2) MS's patches are often worse than the hole. Service pack 2(?) for NT was called the SP-of-death. SP6 rendered Lotus Notes unusable (maybe just the notes server...) No admin worth the title would blindly install MS patches without waiting a month or so to see if any problems were reported. Patches released as the result of an exploit are worse... MS code is unstable at best, when rushed, you're trusting your server to alpha-level code.
MS could learn a lot from IBM, or other mainframe makers, before trying to enter the server market. IBM had mainframes with decade-long uptimes, they didn't do that by rushing untested code onto client machines.
I really think someone needs to sue MS for incompotence. Some of their blunders are so bad it's amazing they went through testing. (I don't think MS should be ruined for it, but if they had to pay out anything in this kind of case, they might be more careful to avoid a larger settlement in the future.)
Exactly. So almost any library will be okay to link to because it's got a documented API. But, you can't link into a all GPLed code and call it a library, because most isn't intended for this.
Now, few people would want to use an undocumented graphics API, but if you consider a standard program, it could be thought of as having a trivial API, one entry function called 'main'... If you could link to this, you could use anyone's GPLed code, and merely call it a library.
So if it looks like a library, you can use it as such. If it doesn't, you can't. Thus one of the 'technicalities' that could have been used to avoid the GPL is moot.
If I write a program that uses library X which is GPLed, the later creation of library Y doesn't mean my program isn't infringing, because when I wrote it, X is all there was... right?
The idea is that if an API is developed and documented, it can be assumed that it is intended to be used an a library, to which things are allowed to link. Any program can use that API because you can't copyright an API. The fact that only one library happens to support that API now is irrelevant.
However, if the API weren't documented, the only way to link with that library would be to write your program to what you see in the source code, which would make it a derivative work.
If I release a program that can be linked to any library, that is fine. Now if you decide to link it to an LGPLed (or even GPLed) library, it doesn't change that MY program isn't infringing.
The FSF says (roughly) that a program is allowed to use any widely published API, without regard for being a derivating work, because other implementations of that library are possible (and likely). It's only when you link to a library which isn't standard, such that your code won't link to anything else.
They have a bit of a discussion about it on the site. Basically though, I think it's how an unbiased judge would rule. If your work NEEDS mine to function, then it's derivative. If it can use mine, or someone else's, then it's probably not derivative of either. (The abstraction required to make it work with either makes it general enough.)
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
Nukes in a surface explosion, aren't very effective against bunkers, until you get to the sizes we'd really want to avoid.
If we can find the bunkers, we can use contentional bunker-busters.
And as for nukes, I think we want to try to avoid leaving a lasting impression...
If we do go in, we should replace governments, raise the standard of living, and hook people on western culture while squashing religion. In a generation we can hand control off to local government under UN control, and hopefully they'll forget completely about their past wars.
If we turn bits of their country radioactive, they're going to take longer to forget.
Our main mistakes with regard to puppet governments have been that we didn't want them to appear to be US protectorates, and that we left them alone too soon. Here, we want them to be seen as protectorates. It's a carrot and stick. For the people, it's a carrot, higher standard of living, etc. For the old rulers, a stick. When we move in, we won't keep any locals in power, so the only way to stay in power is not piss us off... Then we don't simply set up the first locals we see as government, we wait a generation and slowly introduce a democratic government after the population is educated and the old rulers have been erradicated.
If we're moving in, and want real results, not just some revenge, we've got to commit to long-term action.
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
My point in handing out the rules up front is that they can tell us it can't be done, before we commit to anything.
If we drop a few thousand troops in Afghanistan, then refuse to let them use all measures at their disposal, the confusion will cause a lot of deaths. Both ours, and the enemies, as we have to be a lot more ruthless to hold our own without access to half of our arsenal.
Whereas, if we said up-front, no nukes, they'd have the ability to plan for that, and potentially, say they couldn't do it within our parameters.
It's like hiring a consultant. In your initial meeting you spell out the parameters, $10k, must work with IE5/NS4.7/etc, must handle X/orders-per-second. The consultant tells you if this is acceptable, then if so, begins work.
You don't hire a consultant, tell them to build an ordering system, later tell them the requirements, change them, and then three months later, cap the spending at $2000...
"You seem to think we can pretend that it's going to be a nice engagement with clear rules. It's not going to be."
There's no reason we can't set clear limits. Nukes horrify people because they can render the area uninhabitable for millenia (depending on type of nuke, etc). To use one is to open up a nasty can of worms. If we want to, we could fight this without using nukes as easily as we could fight without nerve gas, hollow-point bullets, or any other outlawed military technology.
You mention fuel-air explosives. In many ways, these are a superior choice to nukes. They reach where nukes can't by killing with a firestorm as well as concussion, they don't kill survivors who move through the area later, they don't horrify our allies, and they don't polute nearly as much. They are more awkward to use, afaik, but I think we can afford to use them... This isn't the WW3 battlefield we feared, where we'd leapfrog our tanks forward a mile at a time, while clearing the heavily-armed enemy out with tac-nukes. It's a guerilla war, where the enemies are lightly armed and can be hidden in caves and other highly sheltered areas.
Anyways, the point is that while you or I may not know enough to win the war, if we gave the real generals the parameters, and the commitment that they wouldn't change, they could tell us our chances. We simply need to decide, before we set foot in Afghanistan, what we really want to accomplish to consider the war won.
If all we need to do is kidnap Osama, I'm sure we've got trained commando squads willing to do this. If we need to destroy camps, we've got bombers to delivery the ordinance. If we need to replace the government, we've got ground troops capable of doing the city fighting. But we need to decide now, not after we've started it.
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 2
Well said.
Now hopefully we can avoid this half and half situations.
If a war happens, "we" need to decide what the goal is, then up-front, tell the military what we're willing to accept (no nukes, etc) and let them go from there, without any back-seat driving.
If we can't agree on what we want the armed forces to do, we should risk lives (theirs, and the enemies) by sending them over there with screwed up orders.
Now go out and get more people interested enough in this situation that they'll watch what's being done, instead of just accepting that some politician is going to do a good job when unsupervised.
Re:Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
I wouldn't call you an MS supporter, if you evaluate products and pick the ones you prefer.
To me, an MS supporter is someone who supports the company, usually to the extent that they ignore any misdeeds.
If MS was held to follow regular laws (no lying to judges) and prevented from using exclusive contracts (which I think everyone should be, when the goal of the contract is to reduce competition) then they'd be a proper industry player and I wouldn't mind them.
They're big, which means slow to change. If they couldn't force OEMs to bundle their apps and only their apps, they'd lose ground everytime a new type of application came out (web browser, media player, office suite, for example) and without monopolistic practices, I doubt they'd be able to get rid of all competitors like they have done. And, if they truly did make the best product and it won fairly, more power to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Until you learn the difference between a group, Slashdot, and its individual members, you deserve to be ignored and down-moded.
In case you meant this seriously, let me point out a few differences between the two, that could explain people's differing opinions.
1) The GPL license lets you use and view content as you wish, unlike the NYT's license.
2) The GPL is, for many, an intermediate step to getting rid of, or significantly weakening copyright law. As such, the only violations that matter are those of entities that wish to tighten or prolong undue control.
3) Privacy. The goal isn't to avoid banners at the NYT, it's to avoid the need to register so they know who views which stories, and can build profiling databases. The GPL can be complied with anonymously.
4) Ownership. The NYT is big-media, they are part of an industry that seeks to control what people think by controlling what they hear. It is important to read what they say, if only to know what disinformation is being sown. The GPL is essentially about lack of ownership and freedom of use.
5) There's a difference between creative and factual content. Nobody NEEDS creative content, but people require factual content. (Few people are reposting the NYT content, just enabling people to read it.)
But, above all, remember that Slashdot is not a singular entity. Some members love MS and own much stock, others think BG is the anti-christ and strive to harm his business interests in any way possible. This is NOT a contradiction, different people have different views.
I have heard that this is the favorite brand of pedophiles. Children have been brainwashed for years that these cookies contain more chocolate. This makes them more vulnerable to snack-food related bribery when these cookies are used.
Clearly, for the children, we need to ban cookies. And chief among cookies is Chips Ahoy(tm), the devil's brand.
Try again.
(As a side note, a virgin Jerry Falwell was coerced into performing sexual acts with his mother, in an outhouse, by Chips-Ahoy related temptation. It's true, I read it in Hustler.)
Ok, so terrorists will log onto Q3 servers to carry on secure communications... :)
As if the Columbine lawsuit wasn't silly enough.
Ok, where in the old-forest section does it tell of, let alone explain, Tom Bombadil's elvish name?
Uh huh.
It wasn't until after I read the trilogy and was discussing it with my friends who are serious Tolkein-heads that I discovered all the details about Bombadil. Until then, I thought it was a too-long interlude in a section in desperate need of editing, and it focused on a character who had trouble being coherent. Yawn.
Now, if you focused on that and spent a while, you might do it justice, but really, talking about the Elvish name of a character, and their place in the cosmos, before you actually meet an elf even, is kinda silly.
I think Tolkein's books are best read the second time, after you've read everything else he's written at least once. Unfortunately, the movie can't do it.
But, all hope is not lost, for purists such as yourself... I heard a rumor (said to be fairly accurate) that the movies were ~2 hours for theatre, but the DVD was going to come with that version and a directors cut with an extra hour, all the little snipped bits that they didn't think would play well for the lay-person.
Now, that's likely going to mostly be 30s bits here and there, that they chopped for pacing, but it might also include some scenes which were shot but later cut. And one of those might be Bombadil.
I don't think they'd have shot it, if they planned to not use it, but they might have shot it early on and cut it early.
I didn't see an actor playing Bombadil, so it's not terribly likely, but might be worth paying attention.
It means this: Call it what you will, that doesn't change what it really is.
RealityMaster seems to think that if he calls slavery something else, that it changes it. How is that supposed to work? It's still people being forced to work, and held in captivity with threats of death or violence.
"You don't reinstall after a root compromise? What sort of admin are you?"
/. basically) they firewalled them all and ended up without having any customers infected, despite most of the boxes being unpatched NT/2k.
Did I say that I wouldn't? That's a red herring.
"There is NO excuse for waiting three months with an open root compromise though."
Sure, but you could also firewall it as soon as details of the exploit got out. If, MS released details on what their fixes do. (They do to a degree, if you want to dig deep in MSDN, but often even then, it's only barely documented.)
Just today I had a case of a hotfix screwing things up.
I can't remember what it's called exactly, drive mapping fix, or something. One of our low-level techs was doing some routine upgrades on some 98SE machines, applying critical updates and such. They'd been in storage for a year, so there was a lot. He tested our drivers, then started updating. After every step he tested them again (it's a network card, simply connecting to download the next update is testing.) When he installed that last 'update' it hosed the computer. It wouldn't get to the login screen, in regular or safe-mode.
Essentially toast. Was quicker to re-install the OS than fight with it. Gotta love how that's always the answer with MS software. Reboot, if that doesn't work, reinstall.
He tested that hotfix by ghosting the drive after the reinstall and trying that update again, it hosed it in the same way. Even without any custom drivers (he reverted to a 3com NIC) in the way.
That's an all-to regular occurance in windows. Taking basic safety-precautions can reduce those problems (ghost the system before each round of changes, change one system, then do the rest later, etc) but they're still there, to be worked around.
Which is why a lot of admins go the firewall route. When friends of mine who work at an ISP saw that customers parked servers were getting probed by code-red (when code-red showed up on
You can't firewall everything, but most IIS buffer exploits you can.
Gotcha...
So, if US slaveowners had gone to Africa, paid a tribal chief to declare breathing illegal, and then arrested the lawbreakers, this would be okay.
They then offer to help the poor chief by relocating all these criminals, while they serve their life sentences...
But, it's not slavery, it's imprisonment. And it's not forced labour, is mandatory exercise...
Your convenient definitions will get you nowhere.
Forced work and captivity is slavery. You can call it "vacation" if you'd like, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
And when the strippers have to redeem coupons for their tips, the management can take 50% off the top, nice and easy.
$20 cash is always $20, a coupon you paid $20 for is worth less. How much less depends, but it's always less, perhaps significantly.
The problem is that you can't trust MS's patches.
One of the early NT service packs was called the SP-of-Death. Even recently... Remeber SP6? Nope. It was pulled rather quickly and replaced with 6a (which is often referred to as 6) because it caused a ton of problem for Notes users.
Direct-X 7.0 was buggy and toasted a few systems, but couldn't be uninstalled.
MS has a long history of playing games with patches. Often they don't release patches, forcing an "upgrade" to a later version, other times they release a "patch" that (intentionally?) breaks other companies software.
Decent admins don't install MS patches until they've seen them in action and could evaluate them. The proper action with CRed and Nimda isn't to rush to patch the server, but to change the firewall to prevent malicious requests. To do otherwise is to risk having to reinstall the OS (without the patch) to get your servers working again.
So our society has determined that slavery is wrong for everybody.
So, it's a relative absolute.
You really shouldn't be arguing in this, you're in over your head. You can't simply change the definition of absolute to suit yourself. Absolute morals can NOT exist without religion. If you're saying morals are absolute, you're saying that there's a universal law which mandates it, the only way that's possible is if there's a god doing the mandating.
Now, I know you're not saying there's a universal law, but this means you're not talking about absolute morals, even if you think you are. If a society has decided something, then it wasn't absolute.
What you're talking about is strictly enforced relative morals. Society X has decided that slavery is bad, and there are no exceptions. Only the last part is absolute, the first part is relative.
Furthermore, these morals of our society aren't even enforced absolutely. Murder is wrong, except when a cop shoots a lawbreaker, or you execute a criminal, etc. Slavery is wrong, except when you put prisoners to work. And it's not different just because they're criminals. Absolute in this sense means 100%, no exceptions. If there are exceptions, it's not absolute.
You were closer with your "laws of physics" idea, than with the point you're trying to make.
I still use WinNT Workstation at work. It'd be the original 5-year old install, except that the HD it was on barfed.
For gaming I use 2k at home because 98 started to piss me off (and Millenium is a joke) but at work I don't need USB or Direct X, which are imho the two main differences. It also means I'm fairly happy on a 233MMX with 128MB, except when I do compiles. That wouldn't cut it for a 2k machine.
Actually, the parent post was right. Win NT Workstation and Server were identical. All system files were exactly the same. The difference between them was two registry settings, which you couldn't change while the OS was running.
These settings created "hundreds of differences" to the running OS, but these were all run-time settings.
For example, as you pointed out, Workstation was deliberately crippled so that it couldn't handle more then ten simultaneous connections. Workstation was more than capable of it (as much as an Win NT) but it wasn't allowed to.
Later they started making these changes via #define statements in the code. It was essentially the same thing, but they could point to different executables to show that they weren't the same.
That's when MS lost any chance of ever selling to the really big businesses. Nobody wants to buy software which you aren't allowed to use. WinNT Workstation is exactly that. The main difference between it and Server is the license "agreement".
When you buy a OS (and computer) from other companies, they let you do anything you want with it. Want to run one user, or one thousand? Fine. (They might require a client-license for whatever you're running for each terminal, but the OS itself is capable of doing it.)
(WinNT Server shipped with more utils, but all extras, that you didn't really need to run the system.)
"Cause it's cruel and pointless"
..."
If it makes someone whose relative was killed, feel better to watch the terrorist be eaten alive by ants, or whatever, why does it matter? Sure, it's cruel, but so is killing thousands. I just don't see it as a big deal. Who are you to say your culture of never hurting anyone is better than mine? Ours is the only culture on earth that wouldn't torture terrorists, why are they all wrong?
"End their culture? Fuck why don't you just gas them
Because it's the culture, not the people, that's the problem. As long as they hold onto that culture, they won't be able to fit into the western world which, right now, is the center of the world. Being that I think as people, they are valuable, I'd like to get rid of that which holds them back.
If their culture and religion survive, we'll have more of these attacks, and sooner or later, someone will use nukes out of frustration, killing millions of innocents.
(Not that christianity is good, I'd wipe it out too if I could.)
"But logicly, an increase in security would happen as well."
How do you propose to put 100,000 people in that small of an area and have any reasonable guarantee of security? A dump-truck filled with explosives could crash through any barrier and take the building out, a cruise-missile, a jet that made it past the fighters...
You'd have to have a 100% success rate to ensure those people weren't killed, the terrorists would only have to succeed once.
And then, if they do take it out, you'd just rebuild bigger, making it worth their bringing in a nuke and taking them out all over again.
Give it up, the era of big buildings is OVER. Think of this disaster as the titanic of large buildings, it's where the public realizes that it's insane to pack people into something that'll take two hours or more to fully evacuate. A simple fire on the 30th floor could have done this too, because they can't extinguish anything properly above the 20th or so. These buildings are an obsolete idea.
"And they always will if everybody just sits back and does nothing about it"
See my past posts, I'm doing anything but advocating war. If we do invade, we need to make them a protectorate, not a smoking pile of rubble.
Re: Torture
..."
..."
What's wrong with torture? I don't really think someone who'd kill thousands of people (or mastermind it) is worth worrying about. Why do they deserve kind treatment?
Re: "But if you think that is a good reason not to help a country in need."
No, I think we should help them, I just think we should end their culture and religion, both are obsolete and they'd be better off without them.
At the same time as we help them rebuild, and setup schools, etc, we'll undermine their culture. The religion will take care of itself, educated people give it up.
Re: Rebuilding the towers - "How are you supposed to fight
Simple. Keep blowing up the towers, as you kill more and more people. They'll run out of towers, planes, and people, before the terrorists will.
Re: "The only thing that is going to come
I agree. The US foreign policy has always been stupid, and the US leaders are always willing to carpet-bomb enemy civilians to placate the American public.
You send the baywatch episodes because it's directly against their religion and culture, yet seductive.
If they see people doing "immoral" things and not being killed for it, and see women as valid members of society, then they'll be less likely to accept a religion or culture which disagrees.
It's not enough to simply have them self-governing, we need to remove the influences that cause these sort of attacks.
I'd like to stamp out other religions while we were at it, but unfortunately, we won't have the opportunity. Religion and oppressive culture are to blame for this attack.
"Then you are just as bad as they are."
No, that would be if we took three planes with innocent hostages and crashed them into buildings full once again of innocents, killing over five thousand.
Torturing terrorists might not make you a "nice" guy, but you'd have a long way to go before you sunk to their level.
"They only way to teach them a lesson it to build 3 towers, and make them taller."
Oh yeah, make them even bigger, so they take even longer to evacuate. Doom even more people to a quick fiery death the next time terrorists want to make a statement.
"Then give aid to all the arab countries that need it. That's something they can't fight."
That's the good idea. Send a ton of aid, build schools, send baywatch episodes. The idea being make them indebted to us (but not financially). And, while at it, destroy their culture and religion. Their culture is flawed (women as second-class citizens is okay) and their religion is the cause of this whole mess. (As is all religion, but we might as well start there...)
1) Microsoft could easily turn services off by default. No user needs a webserver unless they have content to serve. If they don't know where the content goes, they don't need the server. They could have put a 'Web Server' config pluggin in the control panel. People are capable to using the control panel (or the shortcuts) to change the screen background, or at least don't raise hell when they can't. They'd be able to turn on a webserver, or wouldn't realize that it was there...
2) MS's patches are often worse than the hole. Service pack 2(?) for NT was called the SP-of-death. SP6 rendered Lotus Notes unusable (maybe just the notes server...) No admin worth the title would blindly install MS patches without waiting a month or so to see if any problems were reported. Patches released as the result of an exploit are worse... MS code is unstable at best, when rushed, you're trusting your server to alpha-level code.
MS could learn a lot from IBM, or other mainframe makers, before trying to enter the server market. IBM had mainframes with decade-long uptimes, they didn't do that by rushing untested code onto client machines.
I really think someone needs to sue MS for incompotence. Some of their blunders are so bad it's amazing they went through testing. (I don't think MS should be ruined for it, but if they had to pay out anything in this kind of case, they might be more careful to avoid a larger settlement in the future.)
Exactly. So almost any library will be okay to link to because it's got a documented API. But, you can't link into a all GPLed code and call it a library, because most isn't intended for this.
Now, few people would want to use an undocumented graphics API, but if you consider a standard program, it could be thought of as having a trivial API, one entry function called 'main'... If you could link to this, you could use anyone's GPLed code, and merely call it a library.
So if it looks like a library, you can use it as such. If it doesn't, you can't. Thus one of the 'technicalities' that could have been used to avoid the GPL is moot.
I think I know what you're getting at...
If I write a program that uses library X which is GPLed, the later creation of library Y doesn't mean my program isn't infringing, because when I wrote it, X is all there was... right?
The idea is that if an API is developed and documented, it can be assumed that it is intended to be used an a library, to which things are allowed to link. Any program can use that API because you can't copyright an API. The fact that only one library happens to support that API now is irrelevant.
However, if the API weren't documented, the only way to link with that library would be to write your program to what you see in the source code, which would make it a derivative work.
Or, that's the theory at least.
Some libraries are documented in such a way as to allow future implementations...
It's the difference between a public and private interface.
Go read the FSFs ideas on it, if you don't like my very short interpretation.
Not quite.
If I release a program that can be linked to any library, that is fine. Now if you decide to link it to an LGPLed (or even GPLed) library, it doesn't change that MY program isn't infringing.
The FSF says (roughly) that a program is allowed to use any widely published API, without regard for being a derivating work, because other implementations of that library are possible (and likely). It's only when you link to a library which isn't standard, such that your code won't link to anything else.
They have a bit of a discussion about it on the site. Basically though, I think it's how an unbiased judge would rule. If your work NEEDS mine to function, then it's derivative. If it can use mine, or someone else's, then it's probably not derivative of either. (The abstraction required to make it work with either makes it general enough.)
Nukes in a surface explosion, aren't very effective against bunkers, until you get to the sizes we'd really want to avoid.
If we can find the bunkers, we can use contentional bunker-busters.
And as for nukes, I think we want to try to avoid leaving a lasting impression...
If we do go in, we should replace governments, raise the standard of living, and hook people on western culture while squashing religion. In a generation we can hand control off to local government under UN control, and hopefully they'll forget completely about their past wars.
If we turn bits of their country radioactive, they're going to take longer to forget.
Our main mistakes with regard to puppet governments have been that we didn't want them to appear to be US protectorates, and that we left them alone too soon. Here, we want them to be seen as protectorates. It's a carrot and stick. For the people, it's a carrot, higher standard of living, etc. For the old rulers, a stick. When we move in, we won't keep any locals in power, so the only way to stay in power is not piss us off... Then we don't simply set up the first locals we see as government, we wait a generation and slowly introduce a democratic government after the population is educated and the old rulers have been erradicated.
If we're moving in, and want real results, not just some revenge, we've got to commit to long-term action.
My point in handing out the rules up front is that they can tell us it can't be done, before we commit to anything.
If we drop a few thousand troops in Afghanistan, then refuse to let them use all measures at their disposal, the confusion will cause a lot of deaths. Both ours, and the enemies, as we have to be a lot more ruthless to hold our own without access to half of our arsenal.
Whereas, if we said up-front, no nukes, they'd have the ability to plan for that, and potentially, say they couldn't do it within our parameters.
It's like hiring a consultant. In your initial meeting you spell out the parameters, $10k, must work with IE5/NS4.7/etc, must handle X/orders-per-second. The consultant tells you if this is acceptable, then if so, begins work.
You don't hire a consultant, tell them to build an ordering system, later tell them the requirements, change them, and then three months later, cap the spending at $2000...
"You seem to think we can pretend that it's going to be a nice engagement with clear rules. It's not going to be."
There's no reason we can't set clear limits. Nukes horrify people because they can render the area uninhabitable for millenia (depending on type of nuke, etc). To use one is to open up a nasty can of worms. If we want to, we could fight this without using nukes as easily as we could fight without nerve gas, hollow-point bullets, or any other outlawed military technology.
You mention fuel-air explosives. In many ways, these are a superior choice to nukes. They reach where nukes can't by killing with a firestorm as well as concussion, they don't kill survivors who move through the area later, they don't horrify our allies, and they don't polute nearly as much. They are more awkward to use, afaik, but I think we can afford to use them... This isn't the WW3 battlefield we feared, where we'd leapfrog our tanks forward a mile at a time, while clearing the heavily-armed enemy out with tac-nukes. It's a guerilla war, where the enemies are lightly armed and can be hidden in caves and other highly sheltered areas.
Anyways, the point is that while you or I may not know enough to win the war, if we gave the real generals the parameters, and the commitment that they wouldn't change, they could tell us our chances. We simply need to decide, before we set foot in Afghanistan, what we really want to accomplish to consider the war won.
If all we need to do is kidnap Osama, I'm sure we've got trained commando squads willing to do this. If we need to destroy camps, we've got bombers to delivery the ordinance. If we need to replace the government, we've got ground troops capable of doing the city fighting. But we need to decide now, not after we've started it.
Well said.
Now hopefully we can avoid this half and half situations.
If a war happens, "we" need to decide what the goal is, then up-front, tell the military what we're willing to accept (no nukes, etc) and let them go from there, without any back-seat driving.
If we can't agree on what we want the armed forces to do, we should risk lives (theirs, and the enemies) by sending them over there with screwed up orders.
Now go out and get more people interested enough in this situation that they'll watch what's being done, instead of just accepting that some politician is going to do a good job when unsupervised.
I wouldn't call you an MS supporter, if you evaluate products and pick the ones you prefer.
To me, an MS supporter is someone who supports the company, usually to the extent that they ignore any misdeeds.
If MS was held to follow regular laws (no lying to judges) and prevented from using exclusive contracts (which I think everyone should be, when the goal of the contract is to reduce competition) then they'd be a proper industry player and I wouldn't mind them.
They're big, which means slow to change. If they couldn't force OEMs to bundle their apps and only their apps, they'd lose ground everytime a new type of application came out (web browser, media player, office suite, for example) and without monopolistic practices, I doubt they'd be able to get rid of all competitors like they have done. And, if they truly did make the best product and it won fairly, more power to them.