Training? Hahahahaha! Perhaps you should look into getting a permit in a state that likes it's citizens having guns... like South Dakota.
Here, to get a concealed weapons permit, one goes down to the sheriffs office, fills out an application and give em 5 bucks for the app fee. One can come back the next day and get a temporary permit from the sheriff so long as you don't have any certain crimes on your record locally.
Within a month, the secretary of state will conduct a more thorough background check, (how extensive I do not know) and provided you pass, you get your permit in the mail not long after.
And with no training required, you can see it's not a difficult process, hell, they gave me one. God I love this state.
No problem, Ohio will just try to extradite you... or, should you ever set foot on US soil (specifically within the reach of Ohio and they know it) you'll find armed persons ready to take you away).
Yes, one is based on the other (and vice versa too in a way)... however remember, this is one of the joys of OSS, anyone can use the code in their own product provided they follow the rules... even if it means making the software less secure.
For the non geek, there are only two web browsers, Microsoft and Netscape. One comes with Windows and is easy... the other has grown to suck more and more over the years. No matter how good Firefox, Opera or any others may be, they don't have the name recognition that Netscape still has.
I would expect that a major Netscape release like this with a Firefox backend will do a lot to draw the non tech folks who continue to use IE because they think it is their only option.
True... but the problem with trying to go with an environmental variable for such an option is at what point does it stop?
There are plenty of application level settings that could be offloaded to the environment with envars permitting more uniform settings on a system... but the standardization of even a portion of such possibilities would be a nightmare. Better to leave each app alone as their own island.
Re:8:35 and it's still there...
on
SCO.com Defaced
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They are in Utah, and by my clock it's only 7:15 there... so it's unlikely that many are to the office yet and have yet to read the all of the "OMG LOL, U R SO GAY! WE H4XORED YOU FOO!" style e-mails.
I wouldn't expect to see anything change until at least 8am mountain time.
I reply only to laugh at your ignorance as to what I've said... you should spend more time reading what I've said instead of criticizing it... if you were to do so you might actually understand what I am talking about and why I am right.
Ahh the typical stupid P2P zealot who thinks that copyright infringement, just because it hurts the MPAA and RIAA is ok.
Yes, p2p does have legitimate purposes, unlike the VCR though, many services, including Kazaa are primarily used for copyright infringement.
The reason they have gone after Kazaa and not say... the maker(s) of bit torrent, is that Kazaa was designed from the get go for copyright infringement. Bram Cohen didn't have downloading music and movies in mind, but legitimate content distribution, to quote from the BitTorrent website:
You have a great product, many customers, and are delivering your product to hordes of happy customers online. Serving large files creates problems of scaling, flash crowds, and reliability. As you grow, they become more central to your business, but your bandwidth costs go up as well. It's a vicious cycle.
There is a solution. BitTorrent is a simple software product which addresses all of these problems.
Kazaa on the other hand, like Napster and many others were with... less legitimate purposes in mind.
Besides... last I checked, the war the MPAA and RIAA had on P2P had nothing to do about it having no legitimate uses, but was how many users were using it.
The moral of this story? You need to grow up and stop with your "nyeh, guns don't kill people, bullets do" style arguments and recognize both sides of this issue (one you weren't even able to identify), even if you happen to disagree with one or both sides.
I'd wager that even the older cards still bare some similarity to the newer ones, enough so that such designs could give a competitor a major head start in designing future cards. Opening up their plans is nice in theory, but in practice... would almost certainly come back to bite them in the rear.
I agree, however he was referring to convicted monopolies... if he were advocating what you seem to have thought... that would just be dumb... Cisco for instance effectively has a monopoly within the high end router market, so they'd automatically be out.
And I thought the problem was abusing ones monopoly powers within ones own industry.
Don't think that updating a linux system with properly built RPM's is immune from not enforcing dependencies... there is still the -i which does just that... install the RPM while ignoring any dependencies it may have.
I never said anything about the installer to begin with, I said that again above, that I am not talking about the installer. Why don't you go read my other post to you regarding the difference between a patch and an installer and then maybe we will talk when you have a clue as to what you are talking about... let alone what I've already said and that you've conveniently ignored.
What's the line? Oh yes... "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Your motto perhaps?
We need to get some terminology correct here... the 'patch' is nothing more than the changes made to the system, it is the 'installer' that applies the patch. Yes, the installer needs some logic to make sure it's not putting a patch where it doesn't belong... but you can bypass the installer quite easily (even under Linux) and take matters into your own hands when applying the patch.
Every single MS patch I've ever seen does verify that you are running it under the correct OS... this is not mean that all admins do it that way.
I fear that it is not uncommon, for an IT person even today to take a snapshot of a given system, install the patch and take a another snapshot and end up comparing the two for the differences... and then applying those differences to the target systems... this can be far easier for the end users who may have to deal with dozens of patches, instead they've got one quick big one (albeit it does take a while to build such a diffgram for the admin)
The patch is dumb, it has no clue as to where it is, it's up to the installer to verify everything is proper, and if you bypass the installer, I guess it's still the fault of the patch.
Tell ya what... I'm going to go grab some binaries off of an old Red Hat 6.2 machine and dump them onto your system alright? When it breaks, be sure to blame your system because it did not expel these foreign files right off the bat... that is if your system is still working.
glibc since version 6 may be compatible... but that's like saying everything since Windows 95 is plug and play... when you end up dealing with a system that doesn't fall into your filter... there is hell to pay and problems up the wazoo.
Saying that as of a given version, things work is nice for future systems, but does nothing about legacy systems.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the offender is female like my burglar who was well known by the local police and court system at the time she broke into my house?
Training? Hahahahaha! Perhaps you should look into getting a permit in a state that likes it's citizens having guns... like South Dakota.
Here, to get a concealed weapons permit, one goes down to the sheriffs office, fills out an application and give em 5 bucks for the app fee. One can come back the next day and get a temporary permit from the sheriff so long as you don't have any certain crimes on your record locally.
Within a month, the secretary of state will conduct a more thorough background check, (how extensive I do not know) and provided you pass, you get your permit in the mail not long after.
And with no training required, you can see it's not a difficult process, hell, they gave me one. God I love this state.
And I was just so serious about my above comment, geeze, can't you tell sarcasm when you read it?
No problem, Ohio will just try to extradite you... or, should you ever set foot on US soil (specifically within the reach of Ohio and they know it) you'll find armed persons ready to take you away).
I think you've forgotten: Firefox != Netscape.
Yes, one is based on the other (and vice versa too in a way)... however remember, this is one of the joys of OSS, anyone can use the code in their own product provided they follow the rules... even if it means making the software less secure.
For the non geek, there are only two web browsers, Microsoft and Netscape. One comes with Windows and is easy... the other has grown to suck more and more over the years. No matter how good Firefox, Opera or any others may be, they don't have the name recognition that Netscape still has.
I would expect that a major Netscape release like this with a Firefox backend will do a lot to draw the non tech folks who continue to use IE because they think it is their only option.
True... but the problem with trying to go with an environmental variable for such an option is at what point does it stop?
There are plenty of application level settings that could be offloaded to the environment with envars permitting more uniform settings on a system... but the standardization of even a portion of such possibilities would be a nightmare. Better to leave each app alone as their own island.
They are in Utah, and by my clock it's only 7:15 there... so it's unlikely that many are to the office yet and have yet to read the all of the "OMG LOL, U R SO GAY! WE H4XORED YOU FOO!" style e-mails.
I wouldn't expect to see anything change until at least 8am mountain time.
The calling card... you mean 'Ducky'?
I reply only to laugh at your ignorance as to what I've said... you should spend more time reading what I've said instead of criticizing it... if you were to do so you might actually understand what I am talking about and why I am right.
With an e-mail address of dragon76@cinci.rr.com I do not think you are one to talk... much of the world rightly calls Cincinnati 'western'.
Ahh the typical stupid P2P zealot who thinks that copyright infringement, just because it hurts the MPAA and RIAA is ok.
Yes, p2p does have legitimate purposes, unlike the VCR though, many services, including Kazaa are primarily used for copyright infringement.
The reason they have gone after Kazaa and not say... the maker(s) of bit torrent, is that Kazaa was designed from the get go for copyright infringement. Bram Cohen didn't have downloading music and movies in mind, but legitimate content distribution, to quote from the BitTorrent website:
You have a great product, many customers, and are delivering your product to hordes of happy customers online. Serving large files creates problems of scaling, flash crowds, and reliability. As you grow, they become more central to your business, but your bandwidth costs go up as well. It's a vicious cycle.
There is a solution. BitTorrent is a simple software product which addresses all of these problems.
Kazaa on the other hand, like Napster and many others were with... less legitimate purposes in mind.
Besides... last I checked, the war the MPAA and RIAA had on P2P had nothing to do about it having no legitimate uses, but was how many users were using it.
The moral of this story? You need to grow up and stop with your "nyeh, guns don't kill people, bullets do" style arguments and recognize both sides of this issue (one you weren't even able to identify), even if you happen to disagree with one or both sides.
Yes they would have a solid case if someone used their design... but how exactly do you propose proving that they used their design?
I'd wager that even the older cards still bare some similarity to the newer ones, enough so that such designs could give a competitor a major head start in designing future cards. Opening up their plans is nice in theory, but in practice... would almost certainly come back to bite them in the rear.
I agree, however he was referring to convicted monopolies... if he were advocating what you seem to have thought... that would just be dumb... Cisco for instance effectively has a monopoly within the high end router market, so they'd automatically be out.
And I thought the problem was abusing ones monopoly powers within ones own industry.
So you are against the feds doing any business with say... AT&T and other Baby Bells that were once part of a broken up monopoly?
Next to the one of the monkey for easy comparison.
Exactly, that was one of the pre-existing loopholes, that and non profit groups and politicians being able to call all they want.
See 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' for an example of that plan in action.
In my defense... It's been a long time since I gave any thought to chemical symbols.
Even if the collection of H3 and it's conversion to useable energy was cheap... the transport costs alone would have to be killer.
I'm all for new sources of energy... but the transport issue would seem to be the first major hurdle, long before the needed reactor.
Don't think that updating a linux system with properly built RPM's is immune from not enforcing dependencies... there is still the -i which does just that... install the RPM while ignoring any dependencies it may have.
Honestly, you are an idiot.
I never said anything about the installer to begin with, I said that again above, that I am not talking about the installer. Why don't you go read my other post to you regarding the difference between a patch and an installer and then maybe we will talk when you have a clue as to what you are talking about... let alone what I've already said and that you've conveniently ignored.
What's the line? Oh yes... "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Your motto perhaps?
We need to get some terminology correct here... the 'patch' is nothing more than the changes made to the system, it is the 'installer' that applies the patch. Yes, the installer needs some logic to make sure it's not putting a patch where it doesn't belong... but you can bypass the installer quite easily (even under Linux) and take matters into your own hands when applying the patch.
Every single MS patch I've ever seen does verify that you are running it under the correct OS... this is not mean that all admins do it that way.
I fear that it is not uncommon, for an IT person even today to take a snapshot of a given system, install the patch and take a another snapshot and end up comparing the two for the differences... and then applying those differences to the target systems... this can be far easier for the end users who may have to deal with dozens of patches, instead they've got one quick big one (albeit it does take a while to build such a diffgram for the admin)
The patch is dumb, it has no clue as to where it is, it's up to the installer to verify everything is proper, and if you bypass the installer, I guess it's still the fault of the patch.
Tell ya what... I'm going to go grab some binaries off of an old Red Hat 6.2 machine and dump them onto your system alright? When it breaks, be sure to blame your system because it did not expel these foreign files right off the bat... that is if your system is still working.
glibc since version 6 may be compatible... but that's like saying everything since Windows 95 is plug and play... when you end up dealing with a system that doesn't fall into your filter... there is hell to pay and problems up the wazoo.
Saying that as of a given version, things work is nice for future systems, but does nothing about legacy systems.