Maybe. But it's usually more a sign that "no proof exists".
No. It's usually more a sign that the person saying it wishes that no proof exists.
In this case, there is ample proof - students being harassed by school officials for things "caught" by the camera, and emails between staff commenting on the photos.
Billy solves his problems by calling up his mom. Heather solver her problems with drugs and alchohol. Daniel solves his problems with a doctor and the law, But Malcolm has his own way, it's better than them all!
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw! Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw! Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw! And he never has the same problems twice!
Whether it's a bill or a cheque arriving late, Rancid marble cheese or a steak that's second rate, Awful TV programming or a broken Elvis plate, Or his fiancee who dumps him, because he's gaining weight,
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw! Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw! Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw! And he never has the same problems twice!
I'm neither Jewish nor Catholic, but given the choice I would rather be a Rabbi. Rabbis are practically required to have sex. (You must be married. Preferably with children).
A priest and a rabbi are seated next to each other on a long plane ride, and start talking to each other.
As the flight progresses, they become friends, and start opening up a little bit towards each other. Eventually, the priest asks the rabbi if he's ever eaten a ham sandwich.
The rabbi admits that yes, he once had a bite of a ham sandwich.
The rabbi then asks the priest if he's had sex.
The priest admits that he once broke his vows and had sex.
The rabbi then says "sure beats the hell out of a ham sandwich, doesn't it?"
They defined 'denial-of-service' as denying the city the ability to administrate its network without Terry Childs, and I think that's legitimate and clearly the case.
Except that it's not.
If that's the case, then every sysadmin is guilty of denial of service when they leave their job (for whatever reason) - because we know how the systems work.
Quit? That's denial of service. Get fired? That's denial of service. Get hit by a bus and spend a year in a coma? That's denial of service.
It's patently absurd for this to be considered "legitimate".
Your "point" fails on so many levels it's not funny.
Even if SCO owned the copyright, and EVEN IF that code was in Linux, they're fscked because THEY THEMSELVES distributed the code under the GPL, which was Xtifr's point.
SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX! IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.
SCO: Your honor, Novell is *LYING*, which is causing people to not believe that we own the copyright - make them stop lying. Judge: Show me a document that says you own the copyrights. SCO: Umm, we can't. Judge: Why do you think you own the copyrights? SCO: Well, Darl's best friend's brother's second-cousin heard that we own them! Judge: Not good enough. You don't own them. SCO: Well, we *should* own them - make them give them to us!
Yes, failed. Unless you're going to claim that that smoking really doesn't cause cancer?
Last I checked they are mostly still in business selling cigarettes and making profits.
What exactly does that have to do with the topic at hand, other than displaying your lack of reading comprehension?
Sounds like they won that one to me.
Read my post, including the part that I quoted. The fact that they have a highly addictive product has no bearing on whether their attempt to discredit legitimate science worked or not.
Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer.
This isn't that surprising - the reason the similarities are so striking is because the oil companies are hiring the exactsamepeople the tobacco industry used.
I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?
I don't know what's more amazing - that you can post something that is so wrong, or the fact that someone modded you up.
the reason for us assuming the need for water has nothing to do with projecting our requirements on the rest of the universe.
This is hilarious - you say that projection has nothing to do with it, then you proceed to try to prove this point by projecting human requirements.
it's non corrosive, non reactive
BZZT. Water is very corrosive and reactive. It is known as "the universal solvent" for a reason.
is liquid at reasonible temperatues
How does one define "reasonible"[sp]? Oh yeah - by projecting our own requirements.
life isn't going to exist at 1000c or -200c
More projecting.
the mechanics of life ie. a fluid transport mechanism, won't work with solids.
Aside from the fact that this is just still more projecting, why exactly is water the only substance that fits this bill? Why could another compound not fill the same purpose?
they're going to hate anything that, in their view, has a negative impact on their revenue.
Not quite - they're going to hate anything that might cause them to change their business model, regardless of the impact (positive or negative) to their revenue.
Their business model is based on control. Anything that causes them to lose *any* amount of that control - even if it means they make more money - will be viewed unfavourably by them.
Given the stated situation (of having a vulnerable system) the former is preferable to the latter.
*sigh* Logic. You fail it.
Given that an adversary *might* be able to exploit a vulnerability, the "preferability" of any given scenario is completely irrelevant - you take steps to make sure they can't. Seriously, saying "oh, if I wish hard enough, maybe nobody will exploit it" is FUCKING BRAINDEAD.
If a vendor refuses to fix a vulnerability, then you must (by necessity) make the problem as widely known, so that as many of the vendor's customers (both current and future) can apply pressure to get them to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. But it's usually more a sign that "no proof exists".
No. It's usually more a sign that the person saying it wishes that no proof exists.
In this case, there is ample proof - students being harassed by school officials for things "caught" by the camera, and emails between staff commenting on the photos.
Google Maps will show my car and trash cans from space
Really? Your car and trash cans are from space?
How did you manage that?
The goggles do nothing!
Billy solves his problems by calling up his mom.
Heather solver her problems with drugs and alchohol.
Daniel solves his problems with a doctor and the law,
But Malcolm has his own way, it's better than them all!
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw!
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw!
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw!
And he never has the same problems twice!
Whether it's a bill or a cheque arriving late,
Rancid marble cheese or a steak that's second rate,
Awful TV programming or a broken Elvis plate,
Or his fiancee who dumps him, because he's gaining weight,
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw!
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw!
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw!
And he never has the same problems twice!
-- The Arrogant Worms
tuna fish sandwich eating
As opposed to all those guys who eat tuna beef, or tuna chicken?
Exactly how many things exist that are called "tuna", which are not fish?
Insert John McCain joke here.
I'm neither Jewish nor Catholic, but given the choice I would rather be a Rabbi. Rabbis are practically required to have sex. (You must be married. Preferably with children).
A priest and a rabbi are seated next to each other on a long plane ride, and start talking to each other.
As the flight progresses, they become friends, and start opening up a little bit towards each other. Eventually, the priest asks the rabbi if he's ever eaten a ham sandwich.
The rabbi admits that yes, he once had a bite of a ham sandwich.
The rabbi then asks the priest if he's had sex.
The priest admits that he once broke his vows and had sex.
The rabbi then says "sure beats the hell out of a ham sandwich, doesn't it?"
I don't care if the laughter is real. I don't need to be told if something is funny.
Wow, you must be *so* much fun to go to live comedies with!
I can imagine when the audience laughs at a joke, you start shushing them because you already that it's funny.
They defined 'denial-of-service' as denying the city the ability to administrate its network without Terry Childs, and I think that's legitimate and clearly the case.
Except that it's not.
If that's the case, then every sysadmin is guilty of denial of service when they leave their job (for whatever reason) - because we know how the systems work.
Quit? That's denial of service.
Get fired? That's denial of service.
Get hit by a bus and spend a year in a coma? That's denial of service.
It's patently absurd for this to be considered "legitimate".
Your "point" fails on so many levels it's not funny.
Even if SCO owned the copyright, and EVEN IF that code was in Linux, they're fscked because THEY THEMSELVES distributed the code under the GPL, which was Xtifr's point.
First off, the copyrights are irrelevant, because SCO has proven that there is no Unix code in Linux (yes, *SCO*).
Second, both SCO and Novell have both distributed Linux under the terms of the GPL.
So, to correct your analogy, it would be like you distributing MS's source code under the GPL, after MS had already released it under the GPL.
No, actually read:
SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX!
IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX
Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.
SCO: Your honor, Novell is *LYING*, which is causing people to not believe that we own the copyright - make them stop lying.
Judge: Show me a document that says you own the copyrights.
SCO: Umm, we can't.
Judge: Why do you think you own the copyrights?
SCO: Well, Darl's best friend's brother's second-cousin heard that we own them!
Judge: Not good enough. You don't own them.
SCO: Well, we *should* own them - make them give them to us!
"Failed"??
Yes, failed. Unless you're going to claim that that smoking really doesn't cause cancer?
Last I checked they are mostly still in business selling cigarettes and making profits.
What exactly does that have to do with the topic at hand, other than displaying your lack of reading comprehension?
Sounds like they won that one to me.
Read my post, including the part that I quoted. The fact that they have a highly addictive product has no bearing on whether their attempt to discredit legitimate science worked or not.
Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer.
This isn't that surprising - the reason the similarities are so striking is because the oil companies are hiring the exact same people the tobacco industry used.
I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?
are you talking about the oil industry which makes 7-10% profit per year
That's right - the poor, impoverished oil companies, which only make hundreds of billions of dollars each year - how can they ever survive on such meager earnings?
5-8% less than what the federal government taxes their product at, plus the additional state taxes upon their product.
And as we all know, all of that tax money goes directly to the evil climate scientists, right?
I can do that without giving IBM millions of dollars.
Its called nurturing, education and providing the opportunity to succeed.
This here is 'merica - we don't take kindly to talk like that. Take your goddamned fucking socialism somewhere else, you pinko commie bastard.
I don't know what's more amazing - that you can post something that is so wrong, or the fact that someone modded you up.
the reason for us assuming the need for water has nothing to do with projecting our requirements on the rest of the universe.
This is hilarious - you say that projection has nothing to do with it, then you proceed to try to prove this point by projecting human requirements.
it's non corrosive, non reactive
BZZT. Water is very corrosive and reactive. It is known as "the universal solvent" for a reason.
is liquid at reasonible temperatues
How does one define "reasonible"[sp]? Oh yeah - by projecting our own requirements.
life isn't going to exist at 1000c or -200c
More projecting.
the mechanics of life ie. a fluid transport mechanism, won't work with solids.
Aside from the fact that this is just still more projecting, why exactly is water the only substance that fits this bill? Why could another compound not fill the same purpose?
grandparents or the young or pregnant woman seek a legal remedy
Don't forget the people with broken backs who are unable to move.
And it's better when performed by Captain Tractor (even without Aimee Hill on flute.)
they're going to hate anything that, in their view, has a negative impact on their revenue.
Not quite - they're going to hate anything that might cause them to change their business model, regardless of the impact (positive or negative) to their revenue.
Their business model is based on control. Anything that causes them to lose *any* amount of that control - even if it means they make more money - will be viewed unfavourably by them.
Didn't it take a VERY LONG TIME for repopulation to happen... ?
Well it couldn't have taken that long.. after all, the earth is only 6000 years old!
/me ducks
I find it more interesting to consider why it doesn't generally work that way.
Two words: Market Power
It has nothing to do with "backbone", or "caring". It has to do with the fact that consumers really don't have as much power as free-market proponents believe.
Given the stated situation (of having a vulnerable system) the former is preferable to the latter.
*sigh* Logic. You fail it.
Given that an adversary *might* be able to exploit a vulnerability, the "preferability" of any given scenario is completely irrelevant - you take steps to make sure they can't. Seriously, saying "oh, if I wish hard enough, maybe nobody will exploit it" is FUCKING BRAINDEAD.
If a vendor refuses to fix a vulnerability, then you must (by necessity) make the problem as widely known, so that as many of the vendor's customers (both current and future) can apply pressure to get them to fix it.
You're then basically telling anyone who might employ such an exploit how to compromise your system.
And you're assuming that someone who wants to exploit your system doesn't already know how.
Do adults do their jobs because "they are supposed to" or "out of the kindness of their own hearts."
I do my job because I love it.
I've been offered more money (sometimes *much* more) to do something else. Each time, I turned it down.