the inspector should make sure that the job is done properly
Which is what I said.
Ownership has nothing to do with it
Wrong. Ownership has everything to do with it. If you own the property, you're allowed to do the work without being a certified electrician.
That suit would be thrown out on the grounds that my parents KNEW that they were hiring an unlicensed electrician.
Yeah, just like the SCO suit was thrown out for lack of evidence, and the McDonald's suit was thrown out because the granny opened the coffee in the car.
The way this works in the real world is that people basically say "fuck the law" and do it anyway, and then the work ends up not getting inspected.
Yup. And when the house burns down because of it, the municipality isn't on the hook for it.
Which is worse? Having a relative do the work and having it inspected or having the relative do the work and NOT having it inspected?
From the point of view of the municipality, the latter is better, because it covers their ass. In case you hadn't noticed, the municipality is the ones that regulate the building codes, and issued the permits - so it makes sense that it's skewed in their favour.
an inspector comes to see that the work is done properly.
But wouldn't the inspector see if you screwed things up?
Yes, that's why I said that.
The problem is that the inspector doesn't come to supervise. You get a permit (which is good for 6 months or so), and do the work. When you're done, you call the inspector to see that it's done properly.
What happens if the house burns down between the time you start the work and the inspector comes?
If you're smart enough to read a pile of undocumented and largely uncommented C code from multiple unknown authors, you should be smart enough to learn assembly language.
You're making the assumption that all FOSS is completely undocumented and uncommented. Not exactly the case.
And you're missing the point that if you *don't* understand part of it, you can email the authors and *ask* them. Try doing that with a disassembly of proprietary source code.
nobody in Brazil is going to go learn C so they can check their source for privacy violations
How do you know that? There are, right now, thousands (if not millions) of people in Brazil who can't afford a computer, and many of them *just might want to learn something*.
You could apply the same "nobody" check to any FOSS project. "Nobody would ever give their software away."
You sound like an MS apologist - you just don't get Open Source.
"Here we have a government supplying software to a demographic of people who are not able to read the source code to see if their personal freedoms (ie: privacy) are being infringed upon."
With FOSS, if they *become* educated, they can read the source code - or they can ask someone who *is* educated to read the source code for them.
If the homeowner does their own electrical work, and they screw up, the worst they can do is burn down their own property.
But then what if they sell it? How would the new owner know that un-inspected work was done?
Uhh.. maybe because when they go to look at it, instead of a house, they see a smoking crater?:o)
Seriously though, where did I say that there is no inspection done? You get a permit (required by law to do work on the electrical) an inspector comes to see that the work is done properly. Even if you're doing it yourself.
What I DO have a problem with, is that I can't work on my parent's house, get it inspected, etc. What's the difference?
The difference is that you don't own the property.
If the homeowner does their own electrical work, and they screw up, the worst they can do is burn down their own property.
When you apply for a permit for your own property, you sign a waiver saying that you're capable of doing the work, and that you hold them harmless if you're a bumbling idiot who runs 220v through 26gauge wire.
If you're doing work on your parent's house, and you burn it down, your parents can go after the municipality for allowing someone who wasn't qualified to do electrical work on their property.
You only really need a licensed plumber for projects for which require a building permit, and thus a county/city building inspector to sign off on the work.
Where I live (Alberta), a homeowner can do their own electrical/plubming work, even for jobs that require a permit. You only have to have be licensed if you're doing work on someone else's property. The job still requires an inspector to sign off on it.
If you screw up between the time of getting the permit and having it inspected, about the worst you can do is burn down or flood your own property.
Note that any work on natural gas lines requires a licensed gasfitter, as a screw-up there can result in an explosion that could level your neighbor's houses.
Which (IMHO) is a pretty sane way of looking at things.
I don't know anyone who runs Gnome or KDE on slackware
I run KDE on slackware, both at home, and at work.
I'd be interested to hear anecdotes from Slackware users who run Gnome or KDE.
Each time a new version of Slackware comes out, I give Gnome a try; I've always switched back to KDE, as the apps are more suitable for me.
Apps: I like kwrite - faster than gedit, includes syntax highlighting.
Features: FS pipes (or whatever they're called) built into KDE - it's *really* nice to be able to make changes to websites by simply opening sftp://myserver.com/ or ftp://my.isp.com/ in the file manager or file dialog (ie, I don't need to scp the file to my local machine, make the edits, then re-upload.) Frequently used servers are bookmarked, so it's just a single mouse click (this has been added to Gnome recently.)
Stability: Both about the same; exception is KDE 3.4, which seems to have some issues, especially with Kmail (which crashes constantly - I'm suffering through with thunderbird for now.)
If the Windows Paradigm was broken people would not use Windows.
Yeah, just like if the ActiveX-plugin paradigm was broken, nobody would use IE, right?
Most users have *no* clue if a piece of software is designed incorrectly or not, it has exactly zero bearing on whether the masses use a particular piece of software or not.
The numbers are correct, however as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The problems with the study:
1. The researchers were dealing with vendor-supplied patches of RHEL3.0 and Windows 2003 Server only. If a Linux vulnerability was released, and then patched by the author on the same day, but Red Had didn't release an update until 7 days later, this would be counted as a week. (Which may or may not be the correct way to view it - it's an 'apples-to-apples' comparison of a distinct 'apples-to-oranges' problem.)
2. the researchers didn't take into account the severity of the vulnerabilities. A local DOS vulnerability was given the same weight as one that offered remote administrative priveleges. The RHEL vulnerabilities were typically not as severe as the Windows ones.
3. the researchers didn't take into account whether the vulnerabilities were theoretical or not. A vulnerability that was theoretical was given the same weight as one which was proven real. All of the vulnerabilities in Windows were real, while the same is not true of RHEL.
4. The researchers didn't take into account the fact that RHEL has *much* more software included with it than Windows Server 2003. More software == more vulnerabilities.
5. The study dealt with "public disclosures" - security researchers typically work with the vendors, giving them some period of time to produce a fix before releasing the advisory; again, as the "vendor" in OSS is the program author, and not Red Hat, MS has a distinct advantage in "number of days to fix", as they can have a fix ready before the advisory is released, while Red Hat usually cannot. (This ties back into point #1 above.)
My dictionary defines reasonable as "Fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances." By definition, you can't say that "something" is reasonable unless you know what that "something" is.
As others have pointed out, his employer is *not* being fair, proper, moderate, or suitable under the circumstances (at least the circumstances outlined by rovingeyes.)
It sounds like you don't have another job lined up already
Actually, it *does* sound like that - "So I decided to look for other jobs and immediately got multiple offers." He got multiple offers (not interviews, but offers - as in "please come work for us") and decided to take one.
No, it doesn't - at least not in the way you're implying. The only "two-way" part about SMTP is that the client must wait for acknowledgement from the server.
It is returning the message to the SMTP server it arrived from.
And what if it's not actually coming from an SMTP server? What if (like 90% of the spam right now) it's coming from a trojaned spam-zombie that's *not* running an SMTPd? Seems pretty useless to me.
This is *only* useful if the spam is coming from an open SMTP relay. If it's coming from a direct-dialup, spam zombie, open proxy, firewalled outbound SMTP server, or anything else that's not listening on port 25, then it's pretty useless.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this only help if the spamming computer is an open SMTP relay?
Most zombies don't accept control connections on port 25, they use a different port (to prevent them being discovered by ISPs that scan their networks for open relays.)
It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement
No, it's not. In a motion for summary judgement, the judge must act as if anything that has not been decided (ie is the GPL binding) must be interpreted as if it's 100% in the non-moving party's favour - so it's not a win in any sense that way.
Think about SCO - the fact that their multi-billion-line fishing expedition probably won't get them any evidence was enough for the judge to deny IBM's motion for summary judgement.
the settlement clearly showed that they were afraid of the GPL
No, it might also show that they thought that settling was cheaper than fighting.
If a merchant suspects a stolen or invalid card (invalid as in expired), they are supposed to confiscate it and return it to the issuer. If it turns out that it really was stolen, they get a reward ($75, last time I was in retail.)
In reality though, they have to weigh the negative effect it would have on their customers - typically unless the credit company tells them to confiscate the card (which does happen), they won't.
Seems to me as if someone hasn't been paying attention in class.
If they wrote it, shouldn't they have the right to decide whether it is open or not?
No, because they are a *MONOPOLY*. Allowing a monopoly to make the API on their *MONOPOLY PRODUCT* secret results in *ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR* (you know - the stuff that this whole thing is all about.)
Open Source is about choice. If you are writing a program from scratch, you can choose to license it using a compatible license.
The cost of the "starter" edition (in theory) reflects how much it cost to develop the content in that product;
You're saying that it costs MS money to make the display larger?!?!?! WTF are you smoking?
they took out content that represented ~50% of the r&d that went into xp home.
I think you need to 's/~/-/g' on that to make it accurate. It actually *costs* money to add in these restrictions (they had to pay someone to code and test them.)
Slashdot Mirror
the inspector should make sure that the job is done properly
Which is what I said.
Ownership has nothing to do with it
Wrong. Ownership has everything to do with it. If you own the property, you're allowed to do the work without being a certified electrician.
That suit would be thrown out on the grounds that my parents KNEW that they were hiring an unlicensed electrician.
Yeah, just like the SCO suit was thrown out for lack of evidence, and the McDonald's suit was thrown out because the granny opened the coffee in the car.
The way this works in the real world is that people basically say "fuck the law" and do it anyway, and then the work ends up not getting inspected.
Yup. And when the house burns down because of it, the municipality isn't on the hook for it.
Which is worse? Having a relative do the work and having it inspected or having the relative do the work and NOT having it inspected?
From the point of view of the municipality, the latter is better, because it covers their ass. In case you hadn't noticed, the municipality is the ones that regulate the building codes, and issued the permits - so it makes sense that it's skewed in their favour.
an inspector comes to see that the work is done properly.
But wouldn't the inspector see if you screwed things up?
Yes, that's why I said that.
The problem is that the inspector doesn't come to supervise. You get a permit (which is good for 6 months or so), and do the work. When you're done, you call the inspector to see that it's done properly.
What happens if the house burns down between the time you start the work and the inspector comes?
ask the slashdot editors to check your spelling
Geez.. isn't that a little like asking SCO for ethics lessons?
If you're smart enough to read a pile of undocumented and largely uncommented C code from multiple unknown authors, you should be smart enough to learn assembly language.
You're making the assumption that all FOSS is completely undocumented and uncommented. Not exactly the case.
And you're missing the point that if you *don't* understand part of it, you can email the authors and *ask* them. Try doing that with a disassembly of proprietary source code.
nobody in Brazil is going to go learn C so they can check their source for privacy violations
How do you know that? There are, right now, thousands (if not millions) of people in Brazil who can't afford a computer, and many of them *just might want to learn something*.
You could apply the same "nobody" check to any FOSS project. "Nobody would ever give their software away."
You sound like an MS apologist - you just don't get Open Source.
And if it were MS software...
"Here we have a government supplying software to a demographic of people who are not able to read the source code to see if their personal freedoms (ie: privacy) are being infringed upon."
With FOSS, if they *become* educated, they can read the source code - or they can ask someone who *is* educated to read the source code for them.
With closed source, they have no such option.
so basically you have a bunch of people not getting permits, not getting it inspected etc etc etc.
all to protect unions
Sorry, but *what*?!?!?
Please explain how people breaking the law (by not getting permits and inspections) protects unions. I think your logic is pretty twisted.
As I said, (in most jurisdictions) you can get a permit to work on your own house without being a certified electrician.
if you have a tiny bit of common sense and can obey basic principles, there is absolutely no reason you should have to be robbed by an "electrician"
It would seem to me that common sense is in short supply around here.
But then what if they sell it? How would the new owner know that un-inspected work was done?
Uhh.. maybe because when they go to look at it, instead of a house, they see a smoking crater?
Seriously though, where did I say that there is no inspection done? You get a permit (required by law to do work on the electrical) an inspector comes to see that the work is done properly. Even if you're doing it yourself.
What I DO have a problem with, is that I can't work on my parent's house, get it inspected, etc. What's the difference?
The difference is that you don't own the property.
If the homeowner does their own electrical work, and they screw up, the worst they can do is burn down their own property.
When you apply for a permit for your own property, you sign a waiver saying that you're capable of doing the work, and that you hold them harmless if you're a bumbling idiot who runs 220v through 26gauge wire.
If you're doing work on your parent's house, and you burn it down, your parents can go after the municipality for allowing someone who wasn't qualified to do electrical work on their property.
You only really need a licensed plumber for projects for which require a building permit, and thus a county/city building inspector to sign off on the work.
Where I live (Alberta), a homeowner can do their own electrical/plubming work, even for jobs that require a permit. You only have to have be licensed if you're doing work on someone else's property. The job still requires an inspector to sign off on it.
If you screw up between the time of getting the permit and having it inspected, about the worst you can do is burn down or flood your own property.
Note that any work on natural gas lines requires a licensed gasfitter, as a screw-up there can result in an explosion that could level your neighbor's houses.
Which (IMHO) is a pretty sane way of looking at things.
I don't know anyone who runs Gnome or KDE on slackware
I run KDE on slackware, both at home, and at work.
I'd be interested to hear anecdotes from Slackware users who run Gnome or KDE.
Each time a new version of Slackware comes out, I give Gnome a try; I've always switched back to KDE, as the apps are more suitable for me.
Apps: I like kwrite - faster than gedit, includes syntax highlighting.
Features: FS pipes (or whatever they're called) built into KDE - it's *really* nice to be able to make changes to websites by simply opening sftp://myserver.com/ or ftp://my.isp.com/ in the file manager or file dialog (ie, I don't need to scp the file to my local machine, make the edits, then re-upload.) Frequently used servers are bookmarked, so it's just a single mouse click (this has been added to Gnome recently.)
Stability: Both about the same; exception is KDE 3.4, which seems to have some issues, especially with Kmail (which crashes constantly - I'm suffering through with thunderbird for now.)
If the Windows Paradigm was broken people would not use Windows.
Yeah, just like if the ActiveX-plugin paradigm was broken, nobody would use IE, right?
Most users have *no* clue if a piece of software is designed incorrectly or not, it has exactly zero bearing on whether the masses use a particular piece of software or not.
The numbers are correct, however as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The problems with the study:
1. The researchers were dealing with vendor-supplied patches of RHEL3.0 and Windows 2003 Server only. If a Linux vulnerability was released, and then patched by the author on the same day, but Red Had didn't release an update until 7 days later, this would be counted as a week. (Which may or may not be the correct way to view it - it's an 'apples-to-apples' comparison of a distinct 'apples-to-oranges' problem.)
2. the researchers didn't take into account the severity of the vulnerabilities. A local DOS vulnerability was given the same weight as one that offered remote administrative priveleges. The RHEL vulnerabilities were typically not as severe as the Windows ones.
3. the researchers didn't take into account whether the vulnerabilities were theoretical or not. A vulnerability that was theoretical was given the same weight as one which was proven real. All of the vulnerabilities in Windows were real, while the same is not true of RHEL.
4. The researchers didn't take into account the fact that RHEL has *much* more software included with it than Windows Server 2003. More software == more vulnerabilities.
5. The study dealt with "public disclosures" - security researchers typically work with the vendors, giving them some period of time to produce a fix before releasing the advisory; again, as the "vendor" in OSS is the program author, and not Red Hat, MS has a distinct advantage in "number of days to fix", as they can have a fix ready before the advisory is released, while Red Hat usually cannot. (This ties back into point #1 above.)
if I'm not mistaken you are at least as badly off than us
You are mistaken.
In the US, an ISP must *immediately remove* alleged infringing material when notified.
Under the proposed Canadian bill, an ISP must *notify* the alleged infringer that someone has complained.
Which one violates due process?
some large ISP's are at least fighting generic takedown notices!
So, your entire argument is that because some ISPs are fighting abuse of process, that it's just as good as not having that abuse in the first place?
Nice ostrich impersonation you have there.
It's perfectly reasonable to want something.
No, it's perfectly *Mu* to want something.
My dictionary defines reasonable as "Fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances." By definition, you can't say that "something" is reasonable unless you know what that "something" is.
As others have pointed out, his employer is *not* being fair, proper, moderate, or suitable under the circumstances (at least the circumstances outlined by rovingeyes.)
It sounds like you don't have another job lined up already
Actually, it *does* sound like that - "So I decided to look for other jobs and immediately got multiple offers." He got multiple offers (not interviews, but offers - as in "please come work for us") and decided to take one.
SMTP requires two-way communication
No, it doesn't - at least not in the way you're implying. The only "two-way" part about SMTP is that the client must wait for acknowledgement from the server.
It is returning the message to the SMTP server it arrived from.
And what if it's not actually coming from an SMTP server? What if (like 90% of the spam right now) it's coming from a trojaned spam-zombie that's *not* running an SMTPd? Seems pretty useless to me.
This is *only* useful if the spam is coming from an open SMTP relay. If it's coming from a direct-dialup, spam zombie, open proxy, firewalled outbound SMTP server, or anything else that's not listening on port 25, then it's pretty useless.
it will be sent back to that IP.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this only help if the spamming computer is an open SMTP relay?
Most zombies don't accept control connections on port 25, they use a different port (to prevent them being discovered by ISPs that scan their networks for open relays.)
So this will do what, exactly?
Isn't he that cross-dressing black guy?
It's certianly a win for the GPL: the judge refused to grant summary judgement
No, it's not. In a motion for summary judgement, the judge must act as if anything that has not been decided (ie is the GPL binding) must be interpreted as if it's 100% in the non-moving party's favour - so it's not a win in any sense that way.
Think about SCO - the fact that their multi-billion-line fishing expedition probably won't get them any evidence was enough for the judge to deny IBM's motion for summary judgement.
the settlement clearly showed that they were afraid of the GPL
No, it might also show that they thought that settling was cheaper than fighting.
what should she do? Take away my credit card?
Technically, yes.
If a merchant suspects a stolen or invalid card (invalid as in expired), they are supposed to confiscate it and return it to the issuer. If it turns out that it really was stolen, they get a reward ($75, last time I was in retail.)
In reality though, they have to weigh the negative effect it would have on their customers - typically unless the credit company tells them to confiscate the card (which does happen), they won't.
Seems to me as if someone hasn't been paying attention in class.
If they wrote it, shouldn't they have the right to decide whether it is open or not?
No, because they are a *MONOPOLY*. Allowing a monopoly to make the API on their *MONOPOLY PRODUCT* secret results in *ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR* (you know - the stuff that this whole thing is all about.)
Open Source is about choice. If you are writing a program from scratch, you can choose to license it using a compatible license.
Which has what to do with this discussion?
The cost of the "starter" edition (in theory) reflects how much it cost to develop the content in that product;
You're saying that it costs MS money to make the display larger?!?!?! WTF are you smoking?
they took out content that represented ~50% of the r&d that went into xp home.
I think you need to 's/~/-/g' on that to make it accurate. It actually *costs* money to add in these restrictions (they had to pay someone to code and test them.)
How? I thought by default that you have to be root to change the ulimit (either up or down)I tried the
If your fixes are actually useful, then they will be accepted.
If an update comes out that already has a version of your fix, then you have no problem updating, because your fix becomes unecessary.
Lucy Lawless and Bruce Campbell
Bruce Campbell as Wonder Woman?!?
I like it!
... able to swap RAM Memory faster than a speeding bullet.