Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist! How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!
August 18 2002, Michael Davidson finishes his code comparison for SCO. It's summed up with "we had found absolutely nothing, i.e., no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever,"
August 28 2002, McBride said Linux does not infringe SCO's copyrights, and that they would not ever make such a claim.
March 2003, McBride says the case is solely about IBM not living up to "contract violations"
April 2003, Microsoft pays SCO $16M for "unix licenses" that it doesn't need.
May 2003, McBride claims that Linux infringes it's copyright, and contains "millions" of lines of SCO code.
August 2003, Microsoft arranges for Baystar to invest $50M in SCO
There's absolutely NOTHING they could do to the guy that would be worse than losing a child.
I don't give a fuck about how bad he feels. He needs to be prevented from doing the same shit again.
He's an idiot who is guilty of criminal negligence causing death. Just because he "feels bad" doesn't mean he'll learn. You can't fix stupid.
I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up comitting suicide intentionally, with the same gun.
Speaking as someone who has suffered with depression and attempted suicide myself, I don't think this would be a bad thing - at least then he won't be able to endanger anyone else.
I'd also betting his marriage is over.
Then you didn't read the article. The child's mother defended him. (And it's important to note that it was *her* daughter, not his - he was the child's stepfather.)
Yes, charges of child endangerment could be filed, but no punishment is going to change anything
You could not be more wrong. If we was prosecuted and convicted, he would lose the right to carry or possess a firearm. That would definitely change something - the chance that this might happen again.
no punishment that state can inflict will come close to what he's done to himself.
It's not about punishment, it's about prevention. The state has a chance to prevent this moron from endangering any other children in the same way. It outrages me that they're not taking it.
He's an idiot, but I dunno if he really needs jail.
He may not need jail, but he *DOES* need to be disallowed from owning or handling firearm.
I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough.
No, it isn't. This guy has proven he does not deserve the right to own a firearm. For the safety of everyone around him, he should be convicted of criminal negligence causing death (or whatever the Tenn. equivalent is) so that he can be banned from owning or posessing a firearm.
So at least part of their legal claim that the FDA can go jump in the lake is based on the notion that their work is limited to one state.
Unfortunately thanks to Wickard v. Filburn, while they are factually correct, they are not legally correct. Basically the Supreme court ruled unanimously that if you make something that someone in another state sells, it can be regulated by the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution.
flight access [...] cashing checks or even credit cards [...]to track purchases [...] replacement for courtesy cards [...] health care, I mean we can now see that you buy WAY too much alcohol and cigarettes [...]the govt types will be able to come up with new, nifty ways to use a national id
Wow - just WOW. You are aware that with the exception of "national health care", EVERYTHING you mentioned would be done by private businesses, right? And if idiots like you get their way and there is no "national health care", private insurance companies could use it the same way, right?
Don't get me wrong - such an ID is a horrible idea - but it's a horrible idea because it will be abused by corporations.
(Yes, I know - all the libertardians will now proceed to mod me down and talk about how the invisible market fairy will make it all better.)
But what happens if you call scp from a number of scripts in parallel? You will get banned?
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
The solution is simple: don't do that.
You have a fixed amount of bandwidth. You gain nothing from running scp in parallel. But if you're really stupid enough to want to do this, whitelist the IP address you do it from.
The problem is that you want to act only on the failed login attempts.
No, you want to act on *ALL* attempts.
If someone is repeatedly attacking you and they get lucky, do you want to let them in when they retry? No, you don't.
What happens if they combine the exploit with a previously unknown local root vulnerability?
Why would they do that, when they could just use a previously unknown remote root vulnerability? Then they wouldn't have to jump through the additionaly hoop of the remote non-root vulnerability.
Many linux people seem to disregard local root vulnerabilities on machines that are single user
[citation needed]
You seem to have gone from an imaginary "unknown local root vulnerability" to unnamed "known local root vulnerabilities" without any indication of how you move from one to the other.. (this is beside the fact that you made the grand assertion that "many" linux people ignore them, without any backing proof at all.)
We understand patents just fine. What we don't understand is how something this trivial could be patented? Patents are supposed to cover novel inventions.
I mean - "oh, you rotate the display! Nobody would ever have thought of that!" you honestly think that's novel?
Before people start writing comments they should actually do some thinking
Yes, you really should. Why you didn't is a mystery to me.
in my car, if you switch the heat to to the defrost setting, the outside air setting is also engaged. I know the reason for this is that the inside air tends to become humid, and thus does not work as well at clearing the windshield... but there IS a solution to that... turn on the AC.
If you check, you'll discover that it also turns on the AC.
All modern cars engage the AC compressor when you turn on defog, whether you want them to or not. (And if yours turns on outside air, then it's "modern".)
The builder doesn't have copyright on my domicile.
That's exactly the point. WHY doesn't he have copyright on your domicile?
That, in itself, eliminates any relevance your reply may have had.
Wow - are you really that stupid?
If builders suddenly started clamouring for a copyright on housing, would you be as supportive of them as you are for songwriters? If not, then you're a hypocrite.
A homebuilder has just as much right to 70+ years of royalties on houses they build as a songwriter has to 70+ years of royalties on songs they write.
Because he doesn't really exist! Seriously, he's Kylie Minogue in reverse-drag. You think it's a co-incidence that they both have the same record label and producers?
Try this: grab *any* Kylie Minogue song. Slow it down by 40%. Listen to the voice.
(And if you think I'm trying to be funny here - I'm dead serious: try it. They're the same person.)
consider the case where my company sells product X that competes with your product Y, but product X is cheaper or better. Then by your argument my company deprives your company of "potential revenue"
Yup - that's exactly how they think. "If you're not giving me all the money I think you should even if you're not using my product, then you're stealing from me."
They're lobbying the government to prevent competition.
Wrong. There is no such thing as a 'secret' URL. This was an unpublished URL, which is not the same thing as a secret.
A secret is something that everybody involved knows not to divulge. A HTTP URL is transmitted in plaintext, URLs are stored in plaintext in your browser's history, they are sent as a referrer when you click on a link in a page or when you load an external element, they are stored in plaintext in your server's logs - they are the exact opposite of secret.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist! How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!
whomever is behind (financing) this crap
Look at the timeline. We know who financed it.
August 18 2002, Michael Davidson finishes his code comparison for SCO. It's summed up with "we had found absolutely nothing, i.e., no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever,"
August 28 2002, McBride said Linux does not infringe SCO's copyrights, and that they would not ever make such a claim.
March 2003, McBride says the case is solely about IBM not living up to "contract violations"
April 2003, Microsoft pays SCO $16M for "unix licenses" that it doesn't need.
May 2003, McBride claims that Linux infringes it's copyright, and contains "millions" of lines of SCO code.
August 2003, Microsoft arranges for Baystar to invest $50M in SCO
There's no such legal term
Then what *is* the legal term? As I said, whatever the Tenn. equvalent is to criminal negligence causing death.
there's nothing in the Constitution that says people can be barred from owning firearms under any conditions.
I guess all those "felons being deprived of firearms" laws are all unconstitutional then, and they'll all be repealed tomorrow, right?
Sorry, try again =)
You first. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you a parent?
I am.
There's absolutely NOTHING they could do to the guy that would be worse than losing a child.
I don't give a fuck about how bad he feels. He needs to be prevented from doing the same shit again.
He's an idiot who is guilty of criminal negligence causing death. Just because he "feels bad" doesn't mean he'll learn. You can't fix stupid.
I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up comitting suicide intentionally, with the same gun.
Speaking as someone who has suffered with depression and attempted suicide myself, I don't think this would be a bad thing - at least then he won't be able to endanger anyone else.
I'd also betting his marriage is over.
Then you didn't read the article. The child's mother defended him. (And it's important to note that it was *her* daughter, not his - he was the child's stepfather.)
Yes, charges of child endangerment could be filed, but no punishment is going to change anything
You could not be more wrong. If we was prosecuted and convicted, he would lose the right to carry or possess a firearm. That would definitely change something - the chance that this might happen again.
no punishment that state can inflict will come close to what he's done to himself.
It's not about punishment, it's about prevention. The state has a chance to prevent this moron from endangering any other children in the same way. It outrages me that they're not taking it.
He's an idiot, but I dunno if he really needs jail.
He may not need jail, but he *DOES* need to be disallowed from owning or handling firearm.
I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough.
No, it isn't. This guy has proven he does not deserve the right to own a firearm. For the safety of everyone around him, he should be convicted of criminal negligence causing death (or whatever the Tenn. equivalent is) so that he can be banned from owning or posessing a firearm.
So at least part of their legal claim that the FDA can go jump in the lake is based on the notion that their work is limited to one state.
Unfortunately thanks to Wickard v. Filburn, while they are factually correct, they are not legally correct. Basically the Supreme court ruled unanimously that if you make something that someone in another state sells, it can be regulated by the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution.
the 286's the military had no clue what to do with
I find it hard to believe that the Navy couldn't recognize a boat anchor when it saw one.
flight access [...] cashing checks or even credit cards [...]to track purchases [...] replacement for courtesy cards [...] health care, I mean we can now see that you buy WAY too much alcohol and cigarettes [...]the govt types will be able to come up with new, nifty ways to use a national id
Wow - just WOW. You are aware that with the exception of "national health care", EVERYTHING you mentioned would be done by private businesses, right? And if idiots like you get their way and there is no "national health care", private insurance companies could use it the same way, right?
Don't get me wrong - such an ID is a horrible idea - but it's a horrible idea because it will be abused by corporations.
(Yes, I know - all the libertardians will now proceed to mod me down and talk about how the invisible market fairy will make it all better.)
This is a risky thing to do IMHO. It's too easy for an attacker to lock out the admins when they start attacking a host.
How, exactly? If an attacker has compromised the host you're connecting from then you've pretty much already lost.
But what happens if you call scp from a number of scripts in parallel? You will get banned?
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
The solution is simple: don't do that.
You have a fixed amount of bandwidth. You gain nothing from running scp in parallel. But if you're really stupid enough to want to do this, whitelist the IP address you do it from.
The problem is that you want to act only on the failed login attempts.
No, you want to act on *ALL* attempts.
If someone is repeatedly attacking you and they get lucky, do you want to let them in when they retry? No, you don't.
What happens if they combine the exploit with a previously unknown local root vulnerability?
Why would they do that, when they could just use a previously unknown remote root vulnerability? Then they wouldn't have to jump through the additionaly hoop of the remote non-root vulnerability.
Many linux people seem to disregard local root vulnerabilities on machines that are single user
[citation needed]
You seem to have gone from an imaginary "unknown local root vulnerability" to unnamed "known local root vulnerabilities" without any indication of how you move from one to the other.. (this is beside the fact that you made the grand assertion that "many" linux people ignore them, without any backing proof at all.)
Why do you have an a priori right to take, use and enjoy their work without compensating them?
Mu. Nobody's talking about taking anything from them.
For the other two - why do you have the right to read my post without compensating me? You're doing it right now.
Any site that connects more than 4 times in 60 seconds gets all packets subsequently dropped.
You could change DROP to TARPIT (if your kernel supports it) to fuck with them a little more.
Agreed.
I hardly use dd anymore - now I use
... go look at an Android phone, which seems to have managed it just fine, even though everything is running in a non-JIT Java RE.
Perhaps none of you understand patents.
We understand patents just fine. What we don't understand is how something this trivial could be patented? Patents are supposed to cover novel inventions.
I mean - "oh, you rotate the display! Nobody would ever have thought of that!" you honestly think that's novel?
Before people start writing comments they should actually do some thinking
Yes, you really should. Why you didn't is a mystery to me.
Could you perhaps provide an example of a search query that Google does substantially better than Bing?
Bing's problems are well known.
Could you provide a reason you've been living under a rock for the past 6 months, but suddenly decided to pop out to troll for MS?
Except that in order for a non-registered trademark to be valid, it must be well known.
Sorry, but "hey, I created a language - it was used by both me *and* my ex-girlfriend's dog five years ago" doesn't cut it.
You absolutely can.
Sorry, no.
It's very easy: discipline people and if they keep doing it, fire them.
That doesn't fix the stupid, it just moves it somewhere else. And how, exactly, does this work when the stupid is in management?
It'll probably only take one person before everyone else starts paying more attention.
Bullshit. The stupid people will continue to be stupid, and blame you for not making their problems go away.
in my car, if you switch the heat to to the defrost setting, the outside air setting is also engaged. I know the reason for this is that the inside air tends to become humid, and thus does not work as well at clearing the windshield... but there IS a solution to that... turn on the AC.
If you check, you'll discover that it also turns on the AC.
All modern cars engage the AC compressor when you turn on defog, whether you want them to or not. (And if yours turns on outside air, then it's "modern".)
The builder doesn't have copyright on my domicile.
That's exactly the point. WHY doesn't he have copyright on your domicile?
That, in itself, eliminates any relevance your reply may have had.
Wow - are you really that stupid?
If builders suddenly started clamouring for a copyright on housing, would you be as supportive of them as you are for songwriters? If not, then you're a hypocrite.
A homebuilder has just as much right to 70+ years of royalties on houses they build as a songwriter has to 70+ years of royalties on songs they write.
I don't know why people pick on Astley.
Because he doesn't really exist! Seriously, he's Kylie Minogue in reverse-drag. You think it's a co-incidence that they both have the same record label and producers?
Try this: grab *any* Kylie Minogue song. Slow it down by 40%. Listen to the voice.
(And if you think I'm trying to be funny here - I'm dead serious: try it. They're the same person.)
consider the case where my company sells product X that competes with your product Y, but product X is cheaper or better. Then by your argument my company deprives your company of "potential revenue"
Yup - that's exactly how they think. "If you're not giving me all the money I think you should even if you're not using my product, then you're stealing from me."
They're lobbying the government to prevent competition.
Sorry, but the submitter got at wrong.
No, you did.
A secret URL is essentially a password
Wrong. There is no such thing as a 'secret' URL. This was an unpublished URL, which is not the same thing as a secret.
A secret is something that everybody involved knows not to divulge. A HTTP URL is transmitted in plaintext, URLs are stored in plaintext in your browser's history, they are sent as a referrer when you click on a link in a page or when you load an external element, they are stored in plaintext in your server's logs - they are the exact opposite of secret.
Everyone has access to medical care in the USA .. it's just that some can't afford it.
You're a fucking idiot. If you can't afford it, you don't have access to it.
Just like everyone has the right to free speech, but not everyone can afford a front page ad in the New York Times to exercise it.
So, you're only allowed to excercise your right to free speech if you pay someone? Doesn't sound very free to me.