Are you aware of any material that reacts quickly enough that it will prevent injury? And also such that it only reacts to the exact wavelength of the incoming light? It's just as much a problem if the pilots are temporarily blinded because they are, effectively, wearing blindfolds as if they are temporarily blinded by laser light.
Are you one of those people who will exclaim "What? The death penalty for breaking and entering? How unjust!" after reading this?
You do know that he wasn't charged with being a douchebag? Hell, douchebaggery isn't even a crime. So I have to wonder, are you uninformed or do you think people should be able to engage in activities that can result in significant harm without any consequence unless something bad happens? Should I be able to go down to the local quik-e-mart with my arsenal and start shooting at people and as long as I don't hit anyone, no-harm-no-foul? Or maybe I should be able to sprinkle polonium in people's food and as long as they can't 100% prove that my actions caused the radiation poisoning, then all I should get is a stern lecture and a finger shaken at me?
The competency of a criminal shouldn't be definitive in how he is treated by the justice system. It may be a factor to include, but should be a small factor. Someone who tries to shoot you in the face and misses shouldn't be treated much differently than someone who tries to shoot you in the face and splatters your brains all over the room.
Well, open windows would probably have been a better way to phrase it. Dust and dirt and particulates come in via open windows/window screens. They settle nearby.
Or he could just keep the environment where his electronics are clean. Vacuum and dust frequently (the room I mean.) Keep the electronic equipment up at desk level or higher. Keep it out from under window screens.
He should have to, at his own expense, visit each individual whose equipment he access and apologize as well as explain to whatever technical detail they desire exactly what he did with their equipment. Plus he should have to pay any incurred costs from his access. And he should have to do this beginning now and engage in continuous effort and not do anything else -- beyond the fundamental tasks of living (eat/sleep/crap) -- until he is done.
Fundamentally accessing someone's property without their consent is harm. Even if, by your own estimates, you cause no harm.
Because it wasn't a different thesis. He was clearly using the informal use of the word "inherited" meaning intergenerational wealth transfer. You can tell that because he later mentions "keeping the relatives happy", which implies that they aren't dead at that point, and thus the money isn't strictly inheritance.
It's a completely different thesis. My point is that Luckyo made the statement that very few wealthy people are wealthy because of their own labor. He describes "rich" people who do not work. I pointed out that according to at least one source the majority of "rich" people are rich because they created their own wealth. No one has shown a source that disputes that. Merely repeating "the strongest indicator of a child's future wealth is the parent's wealth" isn't argument, it's simple correlation and doesn't speak to rates of economic mobility at all.
This is getting far afield from my correction of Luckyo's false statement. If you want to continue discussing this, I'd be happy to but not if you are going to search for the most uncharitable interpretation of my statements possible and then try and score cheap points. It's clear from context that the phrase hardworking isn't a description of physical labor, it's a personality description encompassing multiple traits. And your golf course wheeler-dealers have no source in my statements.
And he's right. Though it isn't just inheritance, it's funding an ivy league education, and investing in the kids ideas, or giving him a job as an exec in the family firm.
Why do you say he's right and then proceed to state a completely different thesis? The argument presented was that the vast majority of rich people either inherited or married wealth and that they only work to the minimum extent necessary to keep the inherited/married money coming. This is blatantly false. At the time that The Millionaire Next Door was written the statistics were that 2/3rds of the millionaires in America were first generation and self-made. Perhaps the numbers have changed since 1996, but not to the extent that "There's a handful who actually did work for their money, and who tend to get used to working long hours. These certainly exist, but they're few and in between." is an accurate statement.
And this
The number one predictor of whether a child will become rich is whether his parents are rich.
Does not refute or support the premise that most rich people inherited their wealth. It's a completely orthogonal fact. Additionally there's nothing surprising that hardworking parents raise hardworking children and that parents with poor decision making skills raise children with poor decision making skills.
To begin with you apparently completely missed the point of my post. I was responding to the guy who claimed that the vast majority of rich people got it by inheritance. That is plainly untrue and comments of that nature reveal great ignorance and deep seated jealousy. It's a rationalization of angry feelings that someone appears to be living a better life than the poster.
However I'm curious if you have you actually read the book or are you just quoting Wikipedia's criticisms? The book isn't about how an ordinary working stiff can accumulate a million dollars through hard work and penny-pinching. Nor is it a guide to how to become a millionaire. It's market research about who the millionaires are. The millionaires in the book aren't stock traders, they are business builders. They are rich because they created value not because they traded their way to paper riches.
The rest of your post is just quibbling about the definition of rich. I can tell you this, if you have just $1,000,000 -- an amount you seem to think is very little -- in productive assets, you can reliably count on $50,000/year in passive income. That seems pretty rich to me. No it's not going to provide you with a gold plated mansion, you're not going to be chauffeured around in a stretch limo everywhere you go, you don't have a private jet. But an extra $50,000 each year means you can travel regularly, you aren't insecure about your employment, you don't have to worry about going hungry, you can live in a good city and enjoy all the benefits of a cosmopolitan lifestyle, and you don't have to worry about sending your children to good schools. Or you can continue living less than your means and watch it grow so that you can retire ten years early and still have an income above the median.
You either have a strange definition of rich or you are woefully uninformed. You could start with the work of Thomas J. Stanley, such as The Millionaire Next Door. In which you will learn that the vast majority of millionaires in the United States are self made, first generation wealthy. And in general adult children who receive money from their parents, in general have less money than their demographic peers.
You say that/bin/sh is what POSIX requires. You do realize that you're going to need to be more specific as there are more than 10 standards under the POSIX umbrella and they are incompatible. So if you're going to make some point about POSIX compatibility, then you're going to have to fine tune your argument significantly beyond a simple "incompatibility with basic POSIX requirements."
Particularly since Solaris is one of the few OSes that even makes an attempt to provide compatibility to multiple versions of the standards.
Depends on the version and patch level. Within the last couple of years I've had SPARC boxes that had bad hardware clocks and any power cycle / boot / ntp startup would result in a three thousand day uptime.
You're very confused. SunOS through versions 4 were based on BSD which was not based on Mach at all. SunOS 5 (aka Solaris 2.x+, aka Solaris 7, Solaris 8, etc.) are based on AT&T Sys-V. Also not Mach based.
If you had a problem with POSIX compatibility on Solaris, it's because you don't know Solaris. There are specific paths you should specify for the various POSIX standards,/usr/xpg4,/usr/xpg6, etc. You might try "man -s 5 POSIX" for a start.
In my opinion you absolutely have the right to gamble, and lots of others such as drug use, engaging in prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, driving without a seat belt and more. However you also have the right to starve, freeze, die of disease, or to spread your brains all over the wall behind you because you wondered what it looked like down the gun barrel. An example of this is the moron Aron Ralston, who had the right to "gnaw" his own arm off because he had the right to go climbing alone without telling anyone where he was going or how long he was expecting to be there.
But if you insist on having society provide shelter, food, clothing, medical care, retirement income and what not, then society gets the privilege of placing limits -- to control behaviors that do not contribute to the overall well being of society.
If water-boarding three people is "mass torture", then what is the use of drones to kill 10-15 innocent civilians for every terrorist? Genocide? Extinction level event? Or maybe you want to re-choose your words and put them in some relation to reality.
The Washington State gubernatorial election of 2004 was invalidated by fraud. During the post election legal maneuvers the Judge "noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state." Additionally it is known that there were 3,500 more counted ballots in King county than there were registered voters. In the end the Judge concluded that he was unable to know how those illegal ballots were cast so he decided to do nothing. The election was settled by a difference of 133 votes. It's not known how the fraud effected the election, but the known fraud exceeded the margin of victory.
How is this disruptive? The only people who won't like this are the customers. The ISPs will love selling metered bandwidth.
People should think about this for a minute.
Once we're used to paying per GB, all that will happen is the rate per GB will go up and within two or three years we'll be paying as much or more than we are now for less bandwidth.
I'm glad you asked this question. The simple answer is no, there's no possible way that you'll be able to connect to your home server while on the internet. There aren't any services that provide an IPv4 address that you can do what you want with. So it's good you didn't waste time searching on the internets.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you aware of any material that reacts quickly enough that it will prevent injury? And also such that it only reacts to the exact wavelength of the incoming light? It's just as much a problem if the pilots are temporarily blinded because they are, effectively, wearing blindfolds as if they are temporarily blinded by laser light.
Are you one of those people who will exclaim "What? The death penalty for breaking and entering? How unjust!" after reading this?
You do know that he wasn't charged with being a douchebag? Hell, douchebaggery isn't even a crime. So I have to wonder, are you uninformed or do you think people should be able to engage in activities that can result in significant harm without any consequence unless something bad happens? Should I be able to go down to the local quik-e-mart with my arsenal and start shooting at people and as long as I don't hit anyone, no-harm-no-foul? Or maybe I should be able to sprinkle polonium in people's food and as long as they can't 100% prove that my actions caused the radiation poisoning, then all I should get is a stern lecture and a finger shaken at me?
The competency of a criminal shouldn't be definitive in how he is treated by the justice system. It may be a factor to include, but should be a small factor. Someone who tries to shoot you in the face and misses shouldn't be treated much differently than someone who tries to shoot you in the face and splatters your brains all over the room.
After reading your description of Joe Quarterpounder's troubles, I'm wondering why it is that we look down on Joe.
Well, open windows would probably have been a better way to phrase it. Dust and dirt and particulates come in via open windows/window screens. They settle nearby.
Or he could just keep the environment where his electronics are clean. Vacuum and dust frequently (the room I mean.) Keep the electronic equipment up at desk level or higher. Keep it out from under window screens.
He should have to, at his own expense, visit each individual whose equipment he access and apologize as well as explain to whatever technical detail they desire exactly what he did with their equipment. Plus he should have to pay any incurred costs from his access. And he should have to do this beginning now and engage in continuous effort and not do anything else -- beyond the fundamental tasks of living (eat/sleep/crap) -- until he is done.
Fundamentally accessing someone's property without their consent is harm. Even if, by your own estimates, you cause no harm.
It's a completely different thesis. My point is that Luckyo made the statement that very few wealthy people are wealthy because of their own labor. He describes "rich" people who do not work. I pointed out that according to at least one source the majority of "rich" people are rich because they created their own wealth. No one has shown a source that disputes that. Merely repeating "the strongest indicator of a child's future wealth is the parent's wealth" isn't argument, it's simple correlation and doesn't speak to rates of economic mobility at all.
This is getting far afield from my correction of Luckyo's false statement. If you want to continue discussing this, I'd be happy to but not if you are going to search for the most uncharitable interpretation of my statements possible and then try and score cheap points. It's clear from context that the phrase hardworking isn't a description of physical labor, it's a personality description encompassing multiple traits. And your golf course wheeler-dealers have no source in my statements.
Why do you say he's right and then proceed to state a completely different thesis? The argument presented was that the vast majority of rich people either inherited or married wealth and that they only work to the minimum extent necessary to keep the inherited/married money coming. This is blatantly false. At the time that The Millionaire Next Door was written the statistics were that 2/3rds of the millionaires in America were first generation and self-made. Perhaps the numbers have changed since 1996, but not to the extent that "There's a handful who actually did work for their money, and who tend to get used to working long hours. These certainly exist, but they're few and in between." is an accurate statement.
And this
Does not refute or support the premise that most rich people inherited their wealth. It's a completely orthogonal fact. Additionally there's nothing surprising that hardworking parents raise hardworking children and that parents with poor decision making skills raise children with poor decision making skills.
To begin with you apparently completely missed the point of my post. I was responding to the guy who claimed that the vast majority of rich people got it by inheritance. That is plainly untrue and comments of that nature reveal great ignorance and deep seated jealousy. It's a rationalization of angry feelings that someone appears to be living a better life than the poster.
However I'm curious if you have you actually read the book or are you just quoting Wikipedia's criticisms? The book isn't about how an ordinary working stiff can accumulate a million dollars through hard work and penny-pinching. Nor is it a guide to how to become a millionaire. It's market research about who the millionaires are. The millionaires in the book aren't stock traders, they are business builders. They are rich because they created value not because they traded their way to paper riches.
The rest of your post is just quibbling about the definition of rich. I can tell you this, if you have just $1,000,000 -- an amount you seem to think is very little -- in productive assets, you can reliably count on $50,000/year in passive income. That seems pretty rich to me. No it's not going to provide you with a gold plated mansion, you're not going to be chauffeured around in a stretch limo everywhere you go, you don't have a private jet. But an extra $50,000 each year means you can travel regularly, you aren't insecure about your employment, you don't have to worry about going hungry, you can live in a good city and enjoy all the benefits of a cosmopolitan lifestyle, and you don't have to worry about sending your children to good schools. Or you can continue living less than your means and watch it grow so that you can retire ten years early and still have an income above the median.
You either have a strange definition of rich or you are woefully uninformed. You could start with the work of Thomas J. Stanley, such as The Millionaire Next Door. In which you will learn that the vast majority of millionaires in the United States are self made, first generation wealthy. And in general adult children who receive money from their parents, in general have less money than their demographic peers.
Don't know if the timing would work out, but wouldn't the clever sort just wire up the next address line to the chip select?
You say that /bin/sh is what POSIX requires. You do realize that you're going to need to be more specific as there are more than 10 standards under the POSIX umbrella and they are incompatible. So if you're going to make some point about POSIX compatibility, then you're going to have to fine tune your argument significantly beyond a simple "incompatibility with basic POSIX requirements."
Particularly since Solaris is one of the few OSes that even makes an attempt to provide compatibility to multiple versions of the standards.
Depends on the version and patch level. Within the last couple of years I've had SPARC boxes that had bad hardware clocks and any power cycle / boot / ntp startup would result in a three thousand day uptime.
You're very confused. SunOS through versions 4 were based on BSD which was not based on Mach at all. SunOS 5 (aka Solaris 2.x+, aka Solaris 7, Solaris 8, etc.) are based on AT&T Sys-V. Also not Mach based.
If you had a problem with POSIX compatibility on Solaris, it's because you don't know Solaris. There are specific paths you should specify for the various POSIX standards, /usr/xpg4, /usr/xpg6, etc. You might try "man -s 5 POSIX" for a start.
In my opinion you absolutely have the right to gamble, and lots of others such as drug use, engaging in prostitution, self-mutilation, suicide, driving without a seat belt and more. However you also have the right to starve, freeze, die of disease, or to spread your brains all over the wall behind you because you wondered what it looked like down the gun barrel. An example of this is the moron Aron Ralston, who had the right to "gnaw" his own arm off because he had the right to go climbing alone without telling anyone where he was going or how long he was expecting to be there.
But if you insist on having society provide shelter, food, clothing, medical care, retirement income and what not, then society gets the privilege of placing limits -- to control behaviors that do not contribute to the overall well being of society.
If water-boarding three people is "mass torture", then what is the use of drones to kill 10-15 innocent civilians for every terrorist? Genocide? Extinction level event? Or maybe you want to re-choose your words and put them in some relation to reality.
The Washington State gubernatorial election of 2004 was invalidated by fraud. During the post election legal maneuvers the Judge "noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state." Additionally it is known that there were 3,500 more counted ballots in King county than there were registered voters. In the end the Judge concluded that he was unable to know how those illegal ballots were cast so he decided to do nothing. The election was settled by a difference of 133 votes. It's not known how the fraud effected the election, but the known fraud exceeded the margin of victory.
How is this disruptive? The only people who won't like this are the customers. The ISPs will love selling metered bandwidth.
People should think about this for a minute.
Once we're used to paying per GB, all that will happen is the rate per GB will go up and within two or three years we'll be paying as much or more than we are now for less bandwidth.
Or 16 fucking million. Something like that.
Well yes. That's 24 fucking million addresses.
Also, last post bitches.
No one post any more. kthxbye.
I'm glad you asked this question. The simple answer is no, there's no possible way that you'll be able to connect to your home server while on the internet. There aren't any services that provide an IPv4 address that you can do what you want with. So it's good you didn't waste time searching on the internets.
According to the linked fact sheet the reaper has a 1,150 mile range. At 230 MPH cruising speed, it has a limit of about 4.5 hours in the air.
It may be worth pointing out that the issue didn't happen at CCC. While Violet Blue was giving a similar talk, it was a different conference.