As always the best programmers are the "hackers" and the ones coming out of schools that accept large sums of money from MS are worse than useless.
And yet the ones working at microsoft consistently put out more featureful, userfriendly software. I'm not MS lover, but I am realistic enough to recognize the nature of software. You add more features you get more bugs. I'd love to see any Unix distro that had the feature set of MS's products with less bugs. Unfortunately what I see is the groups that are trying to emulate MS and include the feature set are continually not able to release a stable, bug free product.
Sort of right on the McDonalds thing, but a lot wrong. McDonalds corp. has a policy that coffee should be kept at 130 degrees F. It turns out that you can keep coffee fresher longer if you keep it hotter. So this particular McDonalds was keeping their coffee at 180 degrees F. The lady in question was the passengar in the car, not the driver and the coffee was spilled over her genitals. And she was something like 80 years old. She originally approached McDs for help paying the medical bills, something on the order of $50,000. McD's said no (not sure if it was the franchise holder here or the corp.) Then the lawsuit escalated from that.
I saw a report that related information that gun crimes in the midwest portions of both Canada and the US (ie. same area north and south of the border) were running similar rates. Maybe it's not the guns then.
In a free society you are perfectly within your rights to infringe on other people. Just as they are in their right to infringe back if you know what I mean.
In a civilized and just society you have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe on other people.
When people want to tear down a country it seems that they like to take aggregate statistics and then compare those with disimilar nations. That just doesn't work. When you have a nation like the US where you have numerous poor and uneducated people who can't compete in the job market to provide for their families they turn to crime. Then you have a segment of the population that is reasonably educated and can support their family and they don't turn to crime. I'd love to see statistics that compared crime rates as a percentage of a economic demographic in various countries. Let's compare the violent crime rate among, say, upper middle class in the US with the upper middle class in Australia. I'm betting that the statistics compare equally across the globe.
Kinda like how the nuclear arms race has made the world a safer place? Especially now that the soviet union has disintegrated and the world's well funded terrorist groups now have The Bomb?
Basically yes. Would you rather only the Soviet Union ever had the bomb? Would you prefer that armies only existed "across the border?"
Knowing that a nuclear bomb is possible means that any suitably well funded terrorist group can make them. It's not just a matter of buying them from bankrupt superpowers.
As much as I hate to disagree with a well written posting, video games do not teach one to make headshots, clear a room, keep a low profile. They teach you to play the video game. I'm good at Quake. I'm a horrible shot. I doubt I could hit someone in the head at ten feet with a hand gun. However I knew that shooting a person in the head was the way to kill them long before games like Doom ever existed. I learned that in junior high. In biology class I learned that without the brain the body can't exist. In history class I saw classic pictures of the horrors of war (anybody else remember the picture of the Chinese|Vietnamese officer holding the gun to the head of the civilian/guerilla?) In English I read classic books (Conrad, Doyle, etc.) All of these "taught" me how to kill in one way or another. Saying that video games teach these skills is silly and assumes that people who play video games are dumber than average. Which oddly enough is typically not the case.
People didn't avoid dying because the bombs were small, they avoided dying because the bombs were flawed. If you think pipe bombs are so tiny, why don't you come on over to my house and hold this thing while I like the fuse and run. Then I'll help them find all the pieces and we'll see if we can put humpty dumpty back together again.
They should add a short quiz to each issue that is being voted on. Don't count the vote if the person doesn't pass the quiz. Voting without a foundation in knowledge is more harmful than not voting.
You're kidding right? Your average gun weilding lunatic isn't a crack marksman. They have to be pretty close in order to hit a target. And it's as trivial to be detached from what's right in front of you as it is to be detached from what's 20 feet away. Especially if you've made up your mind to kill somebody. That alone takes a certain mindset that makes a lot of the other issues moot.
Sure is nice of you to propagate the media myth of the "Trenchcoat Mafia." The two killers at Columbine were not members of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia at all. Just think how wonderful you are making all those kids' lives with your cluelessness.
As far as outrunning a bullet, have you ever tried to shoot a moving target with a handgun? It's not easy and it's not going to be any easier if you are in some kind of rage or emotional high.
This isn't aimed at you, but on the same subject it would be interesting to see how many people would object to being required to pass a minimum clue test in order to be allowed to speak to the public. A lot of damage is done by the words of people with an agenda and I'm not just talking about gun control here.
Do you think you would survive if someone fired 27 rounds of 9mm slugs into your body?
Depends on where you get shot doesn't it? I'd be willing to trade 27 9mm shots to the foot for 27 stab wounds to the throat. Anecdotal stories are fun to read but don't really prove anything. Twenty-seven stab wounds to the chest that don't penetrate the rib cage are not that fatal. Twenty-seven stab wounds in the gut, groin, throat, or arm pits, will pretty much kill everyone unless you are very lucky.
I think everybody in this thread who talks gun control needs to go read the Times article referenced in post 171. It looks like there might be something other than a lack gun control laws behind the world's ills. There are obviously other issues to look at and unfortunately a lot of people just see the idea "gun" and immediately stop looking for the source of a problem.
Chuck D rules. He pioneered a lot of Internet music technologies, and his work with Public Enemy is top-notch.
Pioneering internet music technologies would be using actual technologies of the internet for music purposes. Using the internet as a fancy mail order catalog isn't all that pioneering regardless of availability.
Nah. A large portion of today's Nasdaq plummet is not related to MSFT at all. Look at the last couple of months. Every week there is a new record loss and the next day or two recovers.
Re:But is this really for the better?
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes. So the other 285 points that the nasdaq dropped are just to be ignored then?
Right. Bill Gates gets screwed. (No not like that you dirty minded geeks!) Even if MS stock was to plummet by 50% he's still never going to be in the screwed category. Look at the recent postings here where it showed what kinds of stock he was selling. In one transaction he dumped 100,000,000 shares. That sale turned 8 billion dollars (less taxes and fees) income for him. How screwed is that? I'd like to be screwed like Bill Gates. Woo.
Re:about this fs argument.
on
Bostic on BSD
·
· Score: 1
It's not a question of whether you can lose data, it's a question of how often your FS can be non-consistent, how recoverable it is, and how much of your filesystem an average panic can destroy. With sync metadata you can lose the contents of a single file that was updating when the system failed. With async you can't guarantee that status of your metadata which means that you can't automatically recover your FS. The filesystem that is invulnerable to all possible failures doesn't exist.
The only solution to this is to catch the people doing it quickly. Then drop the boom on them. Really, it's the only viable option. Make them suffer, and ignore their age. Who cares if it's some twit 17 year old elite computer guru or not, it's still antisocial behavior and they need to be punished.
The only way to catch the people responsible is to make sure that you can't easily do long distance faked source addresses.
And the only way to do that is to make a clear seperation between carriers and service providers. Carriers should not be able to create or modify traffic. And all service providers should be required to have routers that will not pass outbound packets with impossible source addresses.
Not to mention that fact that unless microsoft chooses to end the whole issue they can appeal and reappeal for a while yet. Don't expect this to be over for several years.
Or you could just look for accesses from a certain domain/site/whatever and provide a different page. Once you've identified the problem there are easy solutions to prevent wankers from abusing you via technical trickery.
To me having people link into select portions of another site seems goofy. Often one individual will put together a webpage that includes several frames of html, images, etc. I would expect that as the author of said page I should have a certain amount of control of how my copyrighted material was presented and not have to make sure that every image, every hunk of html, every script included a notice of how to get to the real page.
But being who I am I wouldn't make it so that you can't get the page. Instead I would make the page say something terribly damaging to the linker and ensure that the only way to generate that page is to enter my site in a manner I didn't intend. Thus if I was JoeBusiness-dot-com and FredBusiness-dot-com linked to me, then I would put up a page that says "FredBusiness-dot-com sells substandard product/whatever."
Then there's the issue of bandwidth consumtion, etc. If someone is gaining from content on my site and it costs me money for them to do so, I think I would certainly make sure that their business was damaged somehow.
Finally, like I said above it's a technical problem not a legal problem.
Some problems are certainly issues of how much effort is put into security on the part of the admin. But it's not reasonable to expect every sysadmin to be a leet x86 hacker who spends 23 3/4 hours a day disassembling their OS and assorted applications. I think there is a slight problem in the security industry where different companies are competing to show how proficient they are and thus want to be "first to market" with the new exploits. Which creates a bit of a problem. Rather than trying to force a vendors hand to fix the particular exploit they discovered by going public with an exploit and extensive documentation they should really analyze if it's necessary that there be a fix out yesterday. Sometimes an exploit is the result of an oversight, sometimes it requires a PhD in seven different specialized fields to discover. If it's of the latter variety, I think that prudence is more intelligent than being first.
I pretty much completely disagree with your second paragraph entirely. It appears to be mainly advocacy. Sure there are problems with MS' stuff. But is there any more than you find in any other vendor that provides the same feature set and the same ability to shoot yourself in the foot? Do you blame Redhat for problems with Apache? Or more specifically problems with lpd? If someone doesn't have bullet proof glass in their car windows does that mean it's OK to shoot them down? If you aren't wearing the "bear suit" does that mean it's ok to beat the snot out of you with a bat? There are proper ways to deal with issues like this and none of them are of the pie in the face variety. And if the pie your choose to throw happens to be laced with arsnic, well you've screwed yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
As always the best programmers are the "hackers" and the ones coming out of schools that accept large sums of money from MS are worse than useless.
And yet the ones working at microsoft consistently put out more featureful, userfriendly software. I'm not MS lover, but I am realistic enough to recognize the nature of software. You add more features you get more bugs. I'd love to see any Unix distro that had the feature set of MS's products with less bugs. Unfortunately what I see is the groups that are trying to emulate MS and include the feature set are continually not able to release a stable, bug free product.
Sort of right on the McDonalds thing, but a lot wrong. McDonalds corp. has a policy that coffee should be kept at 130 degrees F. It turns out that you can keep coffee fresher longer if you keep it hotter. So this particular McDonalds was keeping their coffee at 180 degrees F. The lady in question was the passengar in the car, not the driver and the coffee was spilled over her genitals. And she was something like 80 years old. She originally approached McDs for help paying the medical bills, something on the order of $50,000. McD's said no (not sure if it was the franchise holder here or the corp.) Then the lawsuit escalated from that.
I saw a report that related information that gun crimes in the midwest portions of both Canada and the US (ie. same area north and south of the border) were running similar rates. Maybe it's not the guns then.
In a free society you are perfectly within your rights to infringe on other people. Just as they are in their right to infringe back if you know what I mean.
In a civilized and just society you have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe on other people.
When people want to tear down a country it seems that they like to take aggregate statistics and then compare those with disimilar nations. That just doesn't work. When you have a nation like the US where you have numerous poor and uneducated people who can't compete in the job market to provide for their families they turn to crime. Then you have a segment of the population that is reasonably educated and can support their family and they don't turn to crime. I'd love to see statistics that compared crime rates as a percentage of a economic demographic in various countries. Let's compare the violent crime rate among, say, upper middle class in the US with the upper middle class in Australia. I'm betting that the statistics compare equally across the globe.
Kinda like how the nuclear arms race has made the world a safer place? Especially now that the soviet union has disintegrated and the world's well funded terrorist groups now have The Bomb?
Basically yes. Would you rather only the Soviet Union ever had the bomb? Would you prefer that armies only existed "across the border?"
Knowing that a nuclear bomb is possible means that any suitably well funded terrorist group can make them. It's not just a matter of buying them from bankrupt superpowers.
As much as I hate to disagree with a well written posting, video games do not teach one to make headshots, clear a room, keep a low profile. They teach you to play the video game. I'm good at Quake. I'm a horrible shot. I doubt I could hit someone in the head at ten feet with a hand gun. However I knew that shooting a person in the head was the way to kill them long before games like Doom ever existed. I learned that in junior high. In biology class I learned that without the brain the body can't exist. In history class I saw classic pictures of the horrors of war (anybody else remember the picture of the Chinese|Vietnamese officer holding the gun to the head of the civilian/guerilla?) In English I read classic books (Conrad, Doyle, etc.) All of these "taught" me how to kill in one way or another. Saying that video games teach these skills is silly and assumes that people who play video games are dumber than average. Which oddly enough is typically not the case.
People didn't avoid dying because the bombs were small, they avoided dying because the bombs were flawed. If you think pipe bombs are so tiny, why don't you come on over to my house and hold this thing while I like the fuse and run. Then I'll help them find all the pieces and we'll see if we can put humpty dumpty back together again.
They should add a short quiz to each issue that is being voted on. Don't count the vote if the person doesn't pass the quiz. Voting without a foundation in knowledge is more harmful than not voting.
You're kidding right? Your average gun weilding lunatic isn't a crack marksman. They have to be pretty close in order to hit a target. And it's as trivial to be detached from what's right in front of you as it is to be detached from what's 20 feet away. Especially if you've made up your mind to kill somebody. That alone takes a certain mindset that makes a lot of the other issues moot.
Sure is nice of you to propagate the media myth of the "Trenchcoat Mafia." The two killers at Columbine were not members of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia at all. Just think how wonderful you are making all those kids' lives with your cluelessness.
As far as outrunning a bullet, have you ever tried to shoot a moving target with a handgun? It's not easy and it's not going to be any easier if you are in some kind of rage or emotional high.
This isn't aimed at you, but on the same subject it would be interesting to see how many people would object to being required to pass a minimum clue test in order to be allowed to speak to the public. A lot of damage is done by the words of people with an agenda and I'm not just talking about gun control here.
Do you think you would survive if someone fired 27 rounds of 9mm slugs into your body?
Depends on where you get shot doesn't it? I'd be willing to trade 27 9mm shots to the foot for 27 stab wounds to the throat. Anecdotal stories are fun to read but don't really prove anything. Twenty-seven stab wounds to the chest that don't penetrate the rib cage are not that fatal. Twenty-seven stab wounds in the gut, groin, throat, or arm pits, will pretty much kill everyone unless you are very lucky.
I think everybody in this thread who talks gun control needs to go read the Times article referenced in post 171. It looks like there might be something other than a lack gun control laws behind the world's ills. There are obviously other issues to look at and unfortunately a lot of people just see the idea "gun" and immediately stop looking for the source of a problem.
Chuck D rules. He pioneered a lot of Internet music technologies, and his work with Public Enemy is top-notch.
Pioneering internet music technologies would be using actual technologies of the internet for music purposes. Using the internet as a fancy mail order catalog isn't all that pioneering regardless of availability.
Nah. A large portion of today's Nasdaq plummet is not related to MSFT at all. Look at the last couple of months. Every week there is a new record loss and the next day or two recovers.
Ah yes. So the other 285 points that the nasdaq dropped are just to be ignored then?
Right. Bill Gates gets screwed. (No not like that you dirty minded geeks!) Even if MS stock was to plummet by 50% he's still never going to be in the screwed category. Look at the recent postings here where it showed what kinds of stock he was selling. In one transaction he dumped 100,000,000 shares. That sale turned 8 billion dollars (less taxes and fees) income for him. How screwed is that? I'd like to be screwed like Bill Gates. Woo.
It's not a question of whether you can lose data, it's a question of how often your FS can be non-consistent, how recoverable it is, and how much of your filesystem an average panic can destroy. With sync metadata you can lose the contents of a single file that was updating when the system failed. With async you can't guarantee that status of your metadata which means that you can't automatically recover your FS. The filesystem that is invulnerable to all possible failures doesn't exist.
The only solution to this is to catch the people doing it quickly. Then drop the boom on them. Really, it's the only viable option. Make them suffer, and ignore their age. Who cares if it's some twit 17 year old elite computer guru or not, it's still antisocial behavior and they need to be punished.
The only way to catch the people responsible is to make sure that you can't easily do long distance faked source addresses.
And the only way to do that is to make a clear seperation between carriers and service providers. Carriers should not be able to create or modify traffic. And all service providers should be required to have routers that will not pass outbound packets with impossible source addresses.
Not to mention that fact that unless microsoft chooses to end the whole issue they can appeal and reappeal for a while yet. Don't expect this to be over for several years.
I think you would then probably be interested to the wonderful world of slander litigation if you didn't have any proof to back up your claim.
It's all in how you phrase it.
Or you could just look for accesses from a certain domain/site/whatever and provide a different page. Once you've identified the problem there are easy solutions to prevent wankers from abusing you via technical trickery.
To me having people link into select portions of another site seems goofy. Often one individual will put together a webpage that includes several frames of html, images, etc. I would expect that as the author of said page I should have a certain amount of control of how my copyrighted material was presented and not have to make sure that every image, every hunk of html, every script included a notice of how to get to the real page.
But being who I am I wouldn't make it so that you can't get the page. Instead I would make the page say something terribly damaging to the linker and ensure that the only way to generate that page is to enter my site in a manner I didn't intend. Thus if I was JoeBusiness-dot-com and FredBusiness-dot-com linked to me, then I would put up a page that says "FredBusiness-dot-com sells substandard product/whatever."
Then there's the issue of bandwidth consumtion, etc. If someone is gaining from content on my site and it costs me money for them to do so, I think I would certainly make sure that their business was damaged somehow.
Finally, like I said above it's a technical problem not a legal problem.
It might be > 25. I was at 29 yesterday and had +1 available to me. If you rant at +1 you'll lose it unless you are way up there.
Some problems are certainly issues of how much effort is put into security on the part of the admin. But it's not reasonable to expect every sysadmin to be a leet x86 hacker who spends 23 3/4 hours a day disassembling their OS and assorted applications. I think there is a slight problem in the security industry where different companies are competing to show how proficient they are and thus want to be "first to market" with the new exploits. Which creates a bit of a problem. Rather than trying to force a vendors hand to fix the particular exploit they discovered by going public with an exploit and extensive documentation they should really analyze if it's necessary that there be a fix out yesterday. Sometimes an exploit is the result of an oversight, sometimes it requires a PhD in seven different specialized fields to discover. If it's of the latter variety, I think that prudence is more intelligent than being first.
I pretty much completely disagree with your second paragraph entirely. It appears to be mainly advocacy. Sure there are problems with MS' stuff. But is there any more than you find in any other vendor that provides the same feature set and the same ability to shoot yourself in the foot? Do you blame Redhat for problems with Apache? Or more specifically problems with lpd? If someone doesn't have bullet proof glass in their car windows does that mean it's OK to shoot them down? If you aren't wearing the "bear suit" does that mean it's ok to beat the snot out of you with a bat? There are proper ways to deal with issues like this and none of them are of the pie in the face variety. And if the pie your choose to throw happens to be laced with arsnic, well you've screwed yourself.