Bad pun, sir. (That's a compliment.) But I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem right here:
Was it murder? Or perhaps creating a public nuisance, simialr to cutting your fingernails in public? Thsi was, after all, himslef 9in copy) that he killed.
Who owns the clones? Do they own themselves, or does the creator own them? That's the real problem. Assuming we succeed in cloning people, the people who create the clones will think they own them and have every right to do with them as they please. We already have a hard enough time figuring this one out with our children.
...a vengeful, violent biblical God who thinks nothing of wiping people out with plague, flood and famine on a whim...
This is really starting to bother me. Why do you have to take this out of context to talk about it?
First, have you been to a Christian church lately? Is that how they teach about God? Jesus loves you? Yes, that statement really is consistent with how you say we teach it, isn't it?
Second, you obviously haven't studied the Old Testament at all - you're just repeating mindless rhetoric you heard somewhere else by another religion hater. I can think of no time in the history cited in the Old Testament when God destroyed something where 1) he didn't give the people ample warning and time to change their ways; 2) he destroyed people who were basically good; or 3) he didn't have the best interests of the future generations of these people in mind. (Example of #3: the Flood. Assuming the people were as bad as they were described - how would you like to be born into a world like that? With that idea in mind, don't you think the Flood might have been a good idea?)
Basically, get your facts straight before you go on a rant about how evil God is.
They should. Third party developers are the life blood of an operating system - especially an operating system made by a company that doesn't have a monopoly on the applications market.
Witness Microsoft. It costs a bit to buy VS6, but if a developer can get it, he has all kinds of information and help at his disposal. And he doesn't have to worry about being attacked by Microsoft's lawyers, either. If he's good, Microsoft may even buy his product! What a deal!
You and I may not like all the stupid shareware and freeware applications - heck, some of them are downright useless. But this is spurring on developer interest and mindshare, and that's what an operating system needs in the long run to survive.
I doubt it - unless you have an nVidia or 3dfx card. The DRI stuff is still beta. (I've successfully gotten it to work with my Radeon, but it tends to freeze the entire system while I play Quake 3.) You can download and build it at dri.sourceforge.net. Make sure you have a 2.4.x kernel first.
NAT devices have the nice side benefit in that it makes hacking them from externel networks tricky. So for the home user behind a high-speed net connection, even if they leave their computer wide open to attack, it may not be trivial to actually attack it.
Amen. One of my favorite NAT tricks is to use DNAT to forward services to machines running different operating systems. When you ask nmap to TCP fingerprint the firewall, it says ??????? and asks you to send the fingerprint information away.
Not only that, but many attacks require multiple services, and many more open a port for the attacker to connect to later. If somebody opens a port on your internal box, they can't use it. They'd have to compromise your firewall as well. (And all I've got running on my firewall is sshd.)
That being said, I don't just sit back and assume that everything is safe. CONSTANT VIGILENCE!
Re:Spend time in the sun?
on
Solar Clothes
·
· Score: 1
Then thousands of years from now, you can ring a civil siren and all the people of light will come to your door so you can eat them.
It's annoying how religious and/or conservative zealots constantly confuse the issues.
It's annoying how liberal and/or "sexual freedom" zealots constantly separate issues that are so intertwined.
People don't want permanent relationships, they want disposable ones that fit neatly between their work schedules. This has absolutely nothing to do with sex before marriage. It has to do with the disposable culture that the rest of the world rightly associates with--and blames on--America.
Oh, I see. It's all Burger King's fault. Got a question for you, Philosopher. Let's say a 16-year-old male decides to have an active sex life. Let's say he experiments, and has all kinds of fun with different partners. (Let's also say he has a great deal of stamina.) What do you suppose his experiences teach him about loving relationships? That they're supposed to last? (And don't try to tell me sex isn't about love. Don't separate the two.) No, they'll likely imbue in him the idea that relationships are disposable.
Let's say he ends up getting married. How faithful is this man to his wife? What are his chances of remaining faithful? What does he think about when he sees another woman that his hormones tell him is attractive? He's had no practice at self-control in at least this one area, and his chances are very diminished.
What about his children? Don't they deserve to have a father that is faithful to their mother?
Since I was young, I was taught about the sanctity of marriage and its contract between the couple, the community, and God. I prepared for it, and when the time came, I was pretty well ready for it. Now I'm happily married to a wonderful woman whom I love more than I ever thought I could. Part of my preparation was abstinence. You tell me I should have had more fun. At whose expense? My wife's? My daughter's? Don't they deserve more than to be disposed?
Your argument is made of straw. On one hand, you say that failure in marriages is due to our disposable culture. I'll agree with you there. But then you advocate sex with anyone and everyone - except those cases where you could incur some physical damage, of course. Yep, disposable partners - that's what ruins marriage.
Mindsets similar to yours are what's killing the family as we know it. You kill it in the name of better sex.
Sex is a very important part of life, and to make a lifelong committment to someone without even having shared that experience with them is just asking for trouble, sexual dysfunction and divorce, or a joyless marriage.
Actually, the single biggest cause of failed marriages is money. Also, divorce rates are higher among people who live together before they marry. What does this mean?
It means that it's dangerous. It means that children suffer because people are too selfish to hold back a bit. Good job. Promote that. You'll feel good about yourself.
...because like Clinton, there is a large portion of the population who hates him irrationally and will never give him credit for anything.
Actually, I didn't like Clinton because I couldn't trust him to tell the truth. The man had multiple and conflicting definitions for the word "is" for crying out loud. I think that's rational.
However, what you say about large populations hating the presidents, in this case, is very true. The election was way too close for Bush to come out a clear winner on things like this.
This is probably the funniest thing I've read in a long time!
Here's the sad part, though: Moderation Totals:Troll=3, Insightful=3, Interesting=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Total=11
We need an age limit for moderation. Apparently, all but two out of 11 moderators are teenage nosepickers. Five of them are teenagers with severe angst (3 insightful? 2 interesting?) Three can't distinguish from a troll and real sarcastic commentary. The overrated moderation may be in order, if the moderator thought the comments were way inappropriate.
The poster of the parent comment should get a job with the Onion.
AFAIK, the advertising in magazines and newspapers pays for the magazines and newspapers completely. The cost is more or less a barrier to entry that exists so people don't subscribe willy-nilly to whatever magazines they want one day (but not the next) and soak up printing costs. Making people pay a small amount causes them to think twice.
Cable TV and satellite are different beasts, though.
...if I seem a little cynical about this much-heralded phenomenon:
Now comes the much-heralded P2P, another potential plunge into personalized, chaotic and subterranean communications. Is this what the Net is really about, every invididual talking to every other individual at the same time, nobody really able to grasp, comprehend or evaluate what they are seeing, where it came from, or knowing who else might be seeing it?
That sounds a whole lot like the Internet itself, doesn't it? What's the big, wonderful thing going on here?
(Note that the FSF is careful to copyright the code it releases under the GPL.)
What he really means is that the FSF is careful to register copyrighted code. Any copyrightable material is copyrighted by YOU as soon as YOU "fix" it on a "medium."
What registration gives you is extra protections, such as the ability to collect statuatory damages up to $100,000 if the infringement is judged to be willful. (If you don't register, you can only collect actual damages, which are very difficult to assess.) You can may also collect attorney's fees.
Hope this clears that up. We really need a copyright FAQ on Slashdot.
Unfortunately, no. A patent can be valid even if all of its parts have prior art. It's the sum of the parts that is patented.
For instance: the steering wheel is in the public domain, and so is the bicycle. I could patent a bicycle with a steering wheel, and it would probably be valid.
And on another note, who exactly would pay the licensing fees that Walid is asking for?
That would be makers of DNS servers. That's why the IETF will not standardize on a patented process.
Couldn't they just cite their own research as prior art and have Walid's patent tossed out?
It would most likely have to have been "reduced to practice" (more or less implemented) before Walid's patent was granted. An exception to this rule is when the product cannot be reasonably implemented before the patent is granted, and the creator can show that it can work. I hope that the IETF has a hacked-up nslookup or something that predates the Walid patent.
Heh. If you have physical access to a Linux box, you can gain root access easily.
At the lilo prompt, enter (probably) "linux init=/bin/bash". Remount the root filesystem read-write with "/bin/mount -n -o remount,rw/". Edit/etc/passwd, and replace the root:x: (the password bit) with root::. (You may have to "mount -a" to mount/usr/bin to get vi or pico, or whatever.) Unmount everything but/, remount that in read-only mode. Hardware reboot. Next time you start it up, there's no root password.
You can edit/etc/X11/xdm/Xservers (or/etc/X11/kdm/Xservers) to add another one. Put the second on:1. When you start xdm (or kdm), you'll have two X servers running.
Re:Everybody should have seen it coming...
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
It just goes to show that a bare install can be dangerously compromised by any amatuer and as such linux really should be run by professionals who know what they are doing.
I think most people could get it with a bit of training (which they probably won't get, but there you go). I've decided that, when setting up a Linux box, the following command is one of my best friends:
Slashdot Mirror
But as far as tool making people sloppy, I don't see anyone bitching about the Microsoft development packages subconciously training bad coders.
Actually, this is my biggest complaint about Visual Basic. It really does do what you claim nobody is complaining about.
Bad pun, sir. (That's a compliment.) But I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem right here:
Was it murder? Or perhaps creating a public nuisance, simialr to cutting your fingernails in public? Thsi was, after all, himslef 9in copy) that he killed.
Who owns the clones? Do they own themselves, or does the creator own them? That's the real problem. Assuming we succeed in cloning people, the people who create the clones will think they own them and have every right to do with them as they please. We already have a hard enough time figuring this one out with our children.
Will we have a clones' rights movement?
This is off-topic, but...
...a vengeful, violent biblical God who thinks nothing of wiping people out with plague, flood and famine on a whim...
This is really starting to bother me. Why do you have to take this out of context to talk about it?
First, have you been to a Christian church lately? Is that how they teach about God? Jesus loves you? Yes, that statement really is consistent with how you say we teach it, isn't it?
Second, you obviously haven't studied the Old Testament at all - you're just repeating mindless rhetoric you heard somewhere else by another religion hater. I can think of no time in the history cited in the Old Testament when God destroyed something where 1) he didn't give the people ample warning and time to change their ways; 2) he destroyed people who were basically good; or 3) he didn't have the best interests of the future generations of these people in mind. (Example of #3: the Flood. Assuming the people were as bad as they were described - how would you like to be born into a world like that? With that idea in mind, don't you think the Flood might have been a good idea?)
Basically, get your facts straight before you go on a rant about how evil God is.
Hey, if this keeps up, we'll eventually start using human brains to store data and solve complex problems!
They should. Third party developers are the life blood of an operating system - especially an operating system made by a company that doesn't have a monopoly on the applications market.
Witness Microsoft. It costs a bit to buy VS6, but if a developer can get it, he has all kinds of information and help at his disposal. And he doesn't have to worry about being attacked by Microsoft's lawyers, either. If he's good, Microsoft may even buy his product! What a deal!
You and I may not like all the stupid shareware and freeware applications - heck, some of them are downright useless. But this is spurring on developer interest and mindshare, and that's what an operating system needs in the long run to survive.
I doubt it - unless you have an nVidia or 3dfx card. The DRI stuff is still beta. (I've successfully gotten it to work with my Radeon, but it tends to freeze the entire system while I play Quake 3.) You can download and build it at dri.sourceforge.net. Make sure you have a 2.4.x kernel first.
NAT devices have the nice side benefit in that it makes hacking them from externel networks tricky. So for the home user behind a high-speed net connection, even if they leave their computer wide open to attack, it may not be trivial to actually attack it.
Amen. One of my favorite NAT tricks is to use DNAT to forward services to machines running different operating systems. When you ask nmap to TCP fingerprint the firewall, it says ??????? and asks you to send the fingerprint information away.
Not only that, but many attacks require multiple services, and many more open a port for the attacker to connect to later. If somebody opens a port on your internal box, they can't use it. They'd have to compromise your firewall as well. (And all I've got running on my firewall is sshd.)
That being said, I don't just sit back and assume that everything is safe. CONSTANT VIGILENCE!
Then thousands of years from now, you can ring a civil siren and all the people of light will come to your door so you can eat them.
Did any moderators get this joke?
It's annoying how religious and/or conservative zealots constantly confuse the issues.
It's annoying how liberal and/or "sexual freedom" zealots constantly separate issues that are so intertwined.
People don't want permanent relationships, they want disposable ones that fit neatly between their work schedules. This has absolutely nothing to do with sex before marriage. It has to do with the disposable culture that the rest of the world rightly associates with--and blames on--America.
Oh, I see. It's all Burger King's fault. Got a question for you, Philosopher. Let's say a 16-year-old male decides to have an active sex life. Let's say he experiments, and has all kinds of fun with different partners. (Let's also say he has a great deal of stamina.) What do you suppose his experiences teach him about loving relationships? That they're supposed to last? (And don't try to tell me sex isn't about love. Don't separate the two.) No, they'll likely imbue in him the idea that relationships are disposable.
Let's say he ends up getting married. How faithful is this man to his wife? What are his chances of remaining faithful? What does he think about when he sees another woman that his hormones tell him is attractive? He's had no practice at self-control in at least this one area, and his chances are very diminished.
What about his children? Don't they deserve to have a father that is faithful to their mother?
Since I was young, I was taught about the sanctity of marriage and its contract between the couple, the community, and God. I prepared for it, and when the time came, I was pretty well ready for it. Now I'm happily married to a wonderful woman whom I love more than I ever thought I could. Part of my preparation was abstinence. You tell me I should have had more fun. At whose expense? My wife's? My daughter's? Don't they deserve more than to be disposed?
Your argument is made of straw. On one hand, you say that failure in marriages is due to our disposable culture. I'll agree with you there. But then you advocate sex with anyone and everyone - except those cases where you could incur some physical damage, of course. Yep, disposable partners - that's what ruins marriage.
Mindsets similar to yours are what's killing the family as we know it. You kill it in the name of better sex.
Sex is a very important part of life, and to make a lifelong committment to someone without even having shared that experience with them is just asking for trouble, sexual dysfunction and divorce, or a joyless marriage.
Actually, the single biggest cause of failed marriages is money. Also, divorce rates are higher among people who live together before they marry. What does this mean?
It means that it's dangerous. It means that children suffer because people are too selfish to hold back a bit. Good job. Promote that. You'll feel good about yourself.
...because like Clinton, there is a large portion of the population who hates him irrationally and will never give him credit for anything.
Actually, I didn't like Clinton because I couldn't trust him to tell the truth. The man had multiple and conflicting definitions for the word "is" for crying out loud. I think that's rational.
However, what you say about large populations hating the presidents, in this case, is very true. The election was way too close for Bush to come out a clear winner on things like this.
This is probably the funniest thing I've read in a long time!
Here's the sad part, though: Moderation Totals:Troll=3, Insightful=3, Interesting=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Total=11
We need an age limit for moderation. Apparently, all but two out of 11 moderators are teenage nosepickers. Five of them are teenagers with severe angst (3 insightful? 2 interesting?) Three can't distinguish from a troll and real sarcastic commentary. The overrated moderation may be in order, if the moderator thought the comments were way inappropriate.
The poster of the parent comment should get a job with the Onion.
People have an amazing capacity to do things, it's just than 95% of us never do anything with that capacity.
It's because we're all busy reading Slashdot.
Somebody mod this down. It's a stealth goatse.cx link.
For people who don't know how that works, check out this site. It tells you all about how to obscure any URL.
AFAIK, the advertising in magazines and newspapers pays for the magazines and newspapers completely. The cost is more or less a barrier to entry that exists so people don't subscribe willy-nilly to whatever magazines they want one day (but not the next) and soak up printing costs. Making people pay a small amount causes them to think twice.
Cable TV and satellite are different beasts, though.
...if I seem a little cynical about this much-heralded phenomenon:
Now comes the much-heralded P2P, another potential plunge into personalized, chaotic and subterranean communications. Is this what the Net is really about, every invididual talking to every other individual at the same time, nobody really able to grasp, comprehend or evaluate what they are seeing, where it came from, or knowing who else might be seeing it?
That sounds a whole lot like the Internet itself, doesn't it? What's the big, wonderful thing going on here?
...while the other programmer sits beside him, hands off the keyboard, and just sits, watches, and comments.
And all this time I thought I was just being nosy. Go figure.
(Note that the FSF is careful to copyright the code it releases under the GPL.)
What he really means is that the FSF is careful to register copyrighted code. Any copyrightable material is copyrighted by YOU as soon as YOU "fix" it on a "medium."
What registration gives you is extra protections, such as the ability to collect statuatory damages up to $100,000 if the infringement is judged to be willful. (If you don't register, you can only collect actual damages, which are very difficult to assess.) You can may also collect attorney's fees.
Hope this clears that up. We really need a copyright FAQ on Slashdot.
Your sig is absolutely frightening. :)
Unfortunately, no. A patent can be valid even if all of its parts have prior art. It's the sum of the parts that is patented.
For instance: the steering wheel is in the public domain, and so is the bicycle. I could patent a bicycle with a steering wheel, and it would probably be valid.
And on another note, who exactly would pay the licensing fees that Walid is asking for?
That would be makers of DNS servers. That's why the IETF will not standardize on a patented process.
Couldn't they just cite their own research as prior art and have Walid's patent tossed out?
It would most likely have to have been "reduced to practice" (more or less implemented) before Walid's patent was granted. An exception to this rule is when the product cannot be reasonably implemented before the patent is granted, and the creator can show that it can work. I hope that the IETF has a hacked-up nslookup or something that predates the Walid patent.
From pr0n to Linux! It's a natural evolutionary path!
Heh. If you have physical access to a Linux box, you can gain root access easily.
/". Edit /etc/passwd, and replace the root:x: (the password bit) with root::. (You may have to "mount -a" to mount /usr/bin to get vi or pico, or whatever.) Unmount everything but /, remount that in read-only mode. Hardware reboot. Next time you start it up, there's no root password.
At the lilo prompt, enter (probably) "linux init=/bin/bash". Remount the root filesystem read-write with "/bin/mount -n -o remount,rw
You can edit /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers (or /etc/X11/kdm/Xservers) to add another one. Put the second on :1. When you start xdm (or kdm), you'll have two X servers running.
It just goes to show that a bare install can be dangerously compromised by any amatuer and as such linux really should be run by professionals who know what they are doing.
I think most people could get it with a bit of training (which they probably won't get, but there you go). I've decided that, when setting up a Linux box, the following command is one of my best friends:
netstat -anp | grep LISTEN