I have to admit that my initial reaction was different. I read this as "We will fully disclose bugs we find unless finding the bug was part of a contract that has a stipulation of not disclosing it."
True. However, making the assumption that you can touch the bulbs, the logic could work in the inverse as well. Turn two lights off, wait a while for them to cool down, turn one back on, go into the room. One light will be off, one will be on and hot, one would be on but not that warm.
2) Room has 3 lights and 3 switches on the outside. You may not peek inside the room, only enter it and exit it. What is the minimum number of times you must enter the room to determine which switch controls which light.
If you know the initial state of the lights and they are conventional lightbulbs, one time should suffice. Turn on two lights. Wait for 5-10 minutes. Turn one of them off.
Now, when you go into the room you know one is on. Feel the other two lightbulbs. The one that is warm is the other switch.
The part of this whole situation that is sad to me is that businesses have gotten so incredibly far away from their roots. The original concept of a "business" were groups of people working together to do or produce something in return for something. The point was not to become wealthy, move up the corporate ladder, or take over the world.
The thing I most wish that businesses today would remember is that the people (read employees) used to be the important part - the business existed to help the people, not the other way around.
The problem with this is that you're making the same mistaken assumptions about the solar system/galaxy/universe that most humans are making about the earth...
That there are infinite resources, and that they exist for the sole purpose of being consumed by humans. This is the kind of philosophy that has put us (and overpopulation) where we are...
While what you say is true, the problem is the number of resources we'll consume and thereby deny to a number of (currently) ecologically diverse systems.
Yeah, I agree humans will take themselves out in a big way at some point, I'm just worried about how much they'll take out with them.
Actually, it just shows that there is CURRENTLY not a big enough Linux gaming market. Give it a couple more years - when linux has made more progress on the desktop, I think we'll see a new loki style company come along and make some bucks...
I think his point is that linux has a larger marketshare with regards to web servers (which appears to be the primary propagation method for this particular virus I believe).
I understand this was an attempt to add spam to my inbox. And as much as I disagree with your motivation, I'd certainly not attempt to stop you from posting it.
Incidentally, this will just make me have to learn more procmail skills - always a plus for a geek such as myself. 8)
Um, "speeach" is protected. To my knowledge, the constitution does not distinguish between the two.
"Otherwise, billboards would have to carry ANY message the advetiser was willing to pay for, including alcohol, tobacco, porn, whatever."
There are no laws that say I have to sell you my services. However, if you were to get your own billboard, I could do nothing to tell you what you can and cannot say.
Well, I'm not sure I would agree with that as a "right". In our society, there's a lot of stuff we'd rather not have to deal with, but that doesn't mean we should do away with it.
Ex: I'm particularly unfond (is that a word?) of white supremists. I would be willing to stand by them to support their right to say whatever they want though. Do I want to hear their rhetoric? Certainly not. But the moment we begin to say they can't express whatever they feel, we become judges. Then who's to say that a particular opinion that you (or I, or anybody else) have can't be censored or made "wrong"?
"And if all this spam was good and ethical, why are they forging From: addresses and using the "reply to this to be removed from our list" addresses to harvest more emails? It's not."
I would agree with you that it is unethical - and in fact, this is part of what I despise about spam. Personally, I think forging email headers should be illegal - that would certainly make filtering spam easier. However, this has little to do with my point. My point is not the ethicality or morality of such things - it's wheter we should be attempting to repress it from happening.
"Look, people, as has been stated before, if we don't find a solution to stop spam, email will become useless as a form of communication. And what, YOU all want to use M$ Messenger Service or AIM?"
After all, mail was made completely useless by junk mail. Hell - nobody uses mail for anything more - they all just use the telephone. To go back to my example, the US is a completely useless place to live (well, ok, maybe this isn't a good example *grin*) because with one bad thing in it (in my example, the white supremists) the whole thing is made bad.
Admittedly true. However, I would argue that there is a definite difference in that case. Ignoring the whole psychological "invading my personal bubble" stuff, that is a physical affront, sending spam is not.
Just for the record, I despise spam too ( I have some serious procmail filters set up) - I just am not in favor of repressing people's right to do it. 8)
I have to admit that I find it interesting that everybody wants to stop spammers. So many of these same folks are the ones that want Dmitri released for exercising free speach... *sigh*
I know I'll probably get moderated down into oblivion for saying this, but I don't see how this is any different than the Dmitri case. I know - people will start talking about "well, it costs me to download it so they're hurting me financially". And I suppose that what Dmitri did isn't going to hurt Adobe financially?
Anyway, I don't remember who said it, but somebody once said (paraphrase) "I may disagree strongly with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I guess that only applies when what somebody has to say doesn't annoy us and cause us to have to hit the 'd' key.
It's good to see ISPs like Verizon reject such pressure from big label companies. But can they hold out forever?
Not to disillusion anybody or anything, but I'm sure this is just a business decision. Compare the money they'd get from the labels (not that huge) to the cost of setting this up (probably pretty big).
I wish I could believe there were a more altruistic reason, but this seems like the more correct answer to me....
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Do I believe whether or not Global Warming is happening / will happen?
Depends on your definition of believe.
I think there's a distinct possibility that they could be right, but as so many "disbelievers" have pointed out, it is just a theory.
Here's what I know. It certainly isn't going to hurt to check into it. As a precautionary measure, putting environmental legislation through doesn't strike me as a particularly bad idea. I hear people yell and cry about how environmental policies make things tougher on businesses, etc, etc.
Personally, I find my right to breathe a little more important than your right to manufacture things.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Am I the only one who sees these companies who's goal seems to be "to take on the big boys" as silly?
Before the rush of companies clamoring over each other to be the biggest best site for whatever audience they were trying to reach, small companies used to succeed. Frequently even.
What they did not do is immediately try to challenge "AOL/Disney/Sony". Heck,/. is a great example of this. Rob didn't set up shop intending to try and take on ZDnet for title of "King Shit of geek news reporting".
If you start small with a small audience and grow, you're much more likely to succeed, at least IMNSHO.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
This guy might have prognostication ability when it comes to tech, but he's a complete idiot regarding biology. A quote:
"Good thing, too, says Martin, who has no patience for those who believe technology has made our lives worse. "We have now put ourselves in a position where, if we wanted to return to nature, nature could feed only about 500 million people on Earth. Without technology, we could not feed the 6 billion we are feeding now, much less the 9 billion who will be living on this planet by 2050. We are forced to play God, and we are forced to be good at it."
Why is this a good thing, that we are attempting to support the 9 billion who will be living on the planet at that point? The reason that the population continues to expand is because we continue to expand food production to support the growing population. Does the term "Catch 22" mean anything to anybody?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Additionally, by preventing it's adoption from proprietary OS's, it (by definition) slows the adoption in general.
Take a look at Ximian - Solaris has already offered a preview to customers and IIRC, it is going to become the default desktop at some point. How can this be a bad thing?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
It seems (at least to me) like a fairly simple concept. The more one enacts control, the less control one has. Think about from the perspective of the person who is being "controlled".
If you're forced into things (no matter what they may be) aren't you more likely not to want to do them, if only because you don't want to be forced into things?
The sad thing is that as far as the teachers/parents/administrators/whatevers are concerned, the system works just fine. They just need to try a little hard to make it work perfect.
As far as I can see, the more they try, the worse it's going to work.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Slashdot Mirror
Just my $.02.
Careful how you phrase this - Education is not the "forcible stuffing of ideas into children, often against their will."
The US concept of school, and the required attendance thereof is the forcible stuffing of ideas into children, often against their will.
There are plenty of ways to educate (children/adults/whomever) that does not follow the above.
True. However, making the assumption that you can touch the bulbs, the logic could work in the inverse as well. Turn two lights off, wait a while for them to cool down, turn one back on, go into the room. One light will be off, one will be on and hot, one would be on but not that warm.
If you know the initial state of the lights and they are conventional lightbulbs, one time should suffice. Turn on two lights. Wait for 5-10 minutes. Turn one of them off.
Now, when you go into the room you know one is on. Feel the other two lightbulbs. The one that is warm is the other switch.
The part of this whole situation that is sad to me is that businesses have gotten so incredibly far away from their roots. The original concept of a "business" were groups of people working together to do or produce something in return for something. The point was not to become wealthy, move up the corporate ladder, or take over the world.
The thing I most wish that businesses today would remember is that the people (read employees) used to be the important part - the business existed to help the people, not the other way around.
The problem with this is that you're making the same mistaken assumptions about the solar system/galaxy/universe that most humans are making about the earth
That there are infinite resources, and that they exist for the sole purpose of being consumed by humans. This is the kind of philosophy that has put us (and overpopulation) where we are...
While what you say is true, the problem is the number of resources we'll consume and thereby deny to a number of (currently) ecologically diverse systems.
Yeah, I agree humans will take themselves out in a big way at some point, I'm just worried about how much they'll take out with them.
... just what this planet needs to help out with the overpopulation problems.
I'd guess they were using Netscape 4's table rendering code. Just trying to convince Mac users to switch over to wintel.
If he really wants to make the thing run faster, turn those varchars into regular chars. And index index index!
glib? Does glib even run on windows?
Actually, it just shows that there is CURRENTLY not a big enough Linux gaming market. Give it a couple more years - when linux has made more progress on the desktop, I think we'll see a new loki style company come along and make some bucks...
I think his point is that linux has a larger marketshare with regards to web servers (which appears to be the primary propagation method for this particular virus I believe).
*chuckle* I will.
I understand this was an attempt to add spam to my inbox. And as much as I disagree with your motivation, I'd certainly not attempt to stop you from posting it.
Incidentally, this will just make me have to learn more procmail skills - always a plus for a geek such as myself. 8)
Um, "speeach" is protected. To my knowledge, the constitution does not distinguish between the two.
"Otherwise, billboards would have to carry ANY message the advetiser was willing to pay for, including alcohol, tobacco, porn, whatever."
There are no laws that say I have to sell you my services. However, if you were to get your own billboard, I could do nothing to tell you what you can and cannot say.
Well, I'm not sure I would agree with that as a "right". In our society, there's a lot of stuff we'd rather not have to deal with, but that doesn't mean we should do away with it.
Ex: I'm particularly unfond (is that a word?) of white supremists. I would be willing to stand by them to support their right to say whatever they want though. Do I want to hear their rhetoric? Certainly not. But the moment we begin to say they can't express whatever they feel, we become judges. Then who's to say that a particular opinion that you (or I, or anybody else) have can't be censored or made "wrong"?
"And if all this spam was good and ethical, why are they forging From: addresses and using the "reply to this to be removed from our list" addresses to harvest more emails? It's not."
I would agree with you that it is unethical - and in fact, this is part of what I despise about spam. Personally, I think forging email headers should be illegal - that would certainly make filtering spam easier. However, this has little to do with my point. My point is not the ethicality or morality of such things - it's wheter we should be attempting to repress it from happening.
"Look, people, as has been stated before, if we don't find a solution to stop spam, email will become useless as a form of communication. And what, YOU all want to use M$ Messenger Service or AIM?"
After all, mail was made completely useless by junk mail. Hell - nobody uses mail for anything more - they all just use the telephone. To go back to my example, the US is a completely useless place to live (well, ok, maybe this isn't a good example *grin*) because with one bad thing in it (in my example, the white supremists) the whole thing is made bad.
Admittedly true. However, I would argue that there is a definite difference in that case. Ignoring the whole psychological "invading my personal bubble" stuff, that is a physical affront, sending spam is not.
Just for the record, I despise spam too ( I have some serious procmail filters set up) - I just am not in favor of repressing people's right to do it. 8)
I have to admit that I find it interesting that everybody wants to stop spammers. So many of these same folks are the ones that want Dmitri released for exercising free speach... *sigh*
I know I'll probably get moderated down into oblivion for saying this, but I don't see how this is any different than the Dmitri case. I know - people will start talking about "well, it costs me to download it so they're hurting me financially". And I suppose that what Dmitri did isn't going to hurt Adobe financially?
Anyway, I don't remember who said it, but somebody once said (paraphrase) "I may disagree strongly with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I guess that only applies when what somebody has to say doesn't annoy us and cause us to have to hit the 'd' key.
I'd guess "Posting on Slashdot".
Awww shit....
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Not to disillusion anybody or anything, but I'm sure this is just a business decision. Compare the money they'd get from the labels (not that huge) to the cost of setting this up (probably pretty big).
I wish I could believe there were a more altruistic reason, but this seems like the more correct answer to me....
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Depends on your definition of believe.
I think there's a distinct possibility that they could be right, but as so many "disbelievers" have pointed out, it is just a theory.
Here's what I know. It certainly isn't going to hurt to check into it. As a precautionary measure, putting environmental legislation through doesn't strike me as a particularly bad idea. I hear people yell and cry about how environmental policies make things tougher on businesses, etc, etc.
Personally, I find my right to breathe a little more important than your right to manufacture things.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Am I the only one who sees these companies who's goal seems to be "to take on the big boys" as silly?
Before the rush of companies clamoring over each other to be the biggest best site for whatever audience they were trying to reach, small companies used to succeed. Frequently even.
What they did not do is immediately try to challenge "AOL/Disney/Sony". Heck, /. is a great example of this. Rob didn't set up shop intending to try and take on ZDnet for title of "King Shit of geek news reporting".
If you start small with a small audience and grow, you're much more likely to succeed, at least IMNSHO.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
"Good thing, too, says Martin, who has no patience for those who believe technology has made our lives worse. "We have now put ourselves in a position where, if we wanted to return to nature, nature could feed only about 500 million people on Earth. Without technology, we could not feed the 6 billion we are feeding now, much less the 9 billion who will be living on this planet by 2050. We are forced to play God, and we are forced to be good at it."
Why is this a good thing, that we are attempting to support the 9 billion who will be living on the planet at that point? The reason that the population continues to expand is because we continue to expand food production to support the growing population. Does the term "Catch 22" mean anything to anybody?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Additionally, by preventing it's adoption from proprietary OS's, it (by definition) slows the adoption in general.
Take a look at Ximian - Solaris has already offered a preview to customers and IIRC, it is going to become the default desktop at some point. How can this be a bad thing?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
It seems (at least to me) like a fairly simple concept. The more one enacts control, the less control one has. Think about from the perspective of the person who is being "controlled".
If you're forced into things (no matter what they may be) aren't you more likely not to want to do them, if only because you don't want to be forced into things?
The sad thing is that as far as the teachers/parents/administrators/whatevers are concerned, the system works just fine. They just need to try a little hard to make it work perfect.
As far as I can see, the more they try, the worse it's going to work.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.