Maybe folks here are mostly too young to remember, but back in the Win9x era, NVidia was also known for crappy drivers, and at a guess was responsible for 90% of the BSODs in systems that had NVidia cards installed. Their hardware was good, but what use is that if its driver keeps crashing the system??
(This is why my older systems all have Matrox video cards... they fucking NEVER crashed.)
Also, you've got a lot of warm-climate indifference in the quality of how stuff is built. The same storm in New England would have broken some windows and flooded some living rooms, but it wouldn't have washed away any houses.
Of course, building on flood plain is just plain stupid to start with.
I've been looking at the Dubbele firewall, which is NetBSD-based and will run on any piece of crap (and comes with instructions that I actually halfway grok). http://www.dubbele.com/how_to_get.html Any thoughts?
Surplus old hardware is not a problem around here; I probably have 50 carcasses that would be up to the job:)
Per TFA, this fee would let you download, share, and generally do what folks are already doing, with the legal risk removed.
But as you say, I'll believe that they're totally indemnifying everyone, at every level, when I see it in cast-iron legalese.
The ad-supported filesharing client (implied by TFA) is really a better idea, in that there's no cash outlay (unless you want to pay the small fee to get rid of the ads) and you'd only pay if you actually used the service. And they could hardly complain if you shared files in an RIAA-supplied client!
Actually, that's a good thought -- let indie bands piggyback on successful acts (much as they do at concerts!) It could work like this:
Go to the NIN site, see endorsements for a dozen new indie bands, with an array of download options much like NIN is presently offering. And NIN takes a small cut (say 10% of sales) of the piggybackers' income, in trade for increasing their visibility beyond any hope they'd ever have even with a big-label contract.
I'd guess it was more like some ISP got sent a bunch of John Doe notices (of the sort NewYorkCountryLawyer has been fighting) and said to the RIAA cartel, "See here, this is getting ridiculous, why don't we try to work together instead?" and made some sort of revenue-sharing offer to the RIAA cartel. Who thought it sounded like a grand way to get a guaranteed revenue stream at absolutely no cost to themselves.
While I think the basic concept is all right (would I pay $5/mo. to download whatever the hell I want, without risk? Sure!), I don't think it should be *imposed* on everyone, since as many here have noted, not everyone wants the industry's general run of kark. And what's to prevent every content industry from wanting a piece of this new pie? as other posts note, the bill could get ridiculous, even if you're actually using most of it.
Sure. So criminals bring guns in from elsewhere, but the LAW-ABIDING citizens of Wash.D.C. are defenseless, thus easy targets.
Dallas has as much density and poverty, yet a lower gun crimes rate. Dallas allows concealed carry. Hmm....
Having had a couple face-offs with thugs, I can personally attest that a gun is a great equalizer, especially when the thug outweighs you by 200 lbs. and you know said thug has done hard time for assault (and is further known to have offed other thugs). My gun is why I am here typing this today, and not pushing up daisies.
"A committee is a creature with 6 or more legs, and no brain." -- R.A.Heinlein
Okay, I think I see... so if I were to set up a junk machine as a router (which I've been muttering about doing for a while anyway) then it could be, uh, squid'd into the job, yes?
That may be generally true, but to fit it to my point: when all law-abiding members of society are made gun-free, even poor criminals will be able to afford the necessary tools, since anyone can cut themselves a club from the nearest tree. So if you're a poverty-stricken criminal, no need to buy a black-market gun you can't afford, when your victims won't have guns anyway.
And even more laughable, TV bullets get stopped by cardboard boxes and sheetrock. Right.....
Side note: I have a silly habit of counting shots on TV shows. Most run one over reality, but I guess that's better than the infinite repeater of yesteryear!
Yep, I saw that post about "finding a gun", which partly inspired my reply above.
Montana public schools in the 1960s/70s provided some basic gun-safety classes (actually, they were required). Wonder if any schools do that now?
Bah, here in SoCal, once mommy is done coddling 'em, the state takes over. Hence it's common to see 30 year olds who behave more like they're 12 to 16.
That's why I hope that at least SOME of the senior officers still remember what they were taught about NOT following illegal orders -- and that at least SOME of the recruits are still taught this same concept.
Here is what most people don't grok about the 2nd Amendment:
It is NOT intended so that We the People can defend ourselves against an invader (tho that could be a useful side consequence).
It is intended so that if necessary, we can defend ourselves against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, if necessary by staging an armed revolt.
Remember that these people had just come out of a war for independence from an abusive gov't, and the whole concept was still fresh in their minds.
Apparently Americans today have entirely forgotten it... yet look at all the whining about gov't abuses (which objectively, are at presently rather worse than the British Crown's abuses on the Colonies).
"A man who defended himself is serving longer than those who were robbing him. An innocent man who has done nothing wrong has been imprisoned. The utter ridiculousness of the anti-defense movement is realized."
Upon refitting my tinfoil hat, I'm moved to comment that when the "unintended consequences" of defending yourself are so much more negative than being a crime victim that no one DARES defend themselves, the people have been reduced to extremely herdable sheep, ever so much easier for the gov't to deal with, as the people have been well-taught to never, ever resist no matter what.
And unless you keep your kid in a glass bubble, YOUR gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, etc. may not be the ONLY gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, etc, that your kid encounters. What happens when a gun-ignorant kid finds a gun on the street, or when his equally gun-ignorant friend shows him the nifty "toy gun" he found in daddy's army locker?
I knew real guns from (realistic) toy guns by the time I was five years old, but I grew up with both in the house (and nothing locked up). I doubt that most kids today could tell a realistic toy from the real thing.
Maybe kids wouldn't believe those things if adults didn't try to "soften the blow" by telling kids all sorts of BS, like "grandma is in heaven now" (even if that's your religious belief, it's not how a little kid will interpret that) or "Spot will be okay, he just can't live with us anymore" after Spot gets killed in the road.
While the motivation of reducing kids' anxiety is good on the surface, encouraging fantasy beliefs actually works the other way around. Kids can handle just about anything if you're HONEST with them. But if you try to hide stuff, kids KNOW something is amiss, and worry that much more about it.
I've also noticed that most little kids are perfectly aware of what's real and what's fantasy -- UNTIL an adult tells them that something the kid knows is fantasy is "in fact real", and confuses the issue -- from the kid's POV it goes like this: "I thought adults knew what they're talking about?? why do they believe Santa is real? *I* knew Santa was pretend; now I'm not so sure."
Well, see, the nice thing about knowing that your prospective victim isn't packing a gun, is that you don't have to pack a gun either; why incur needless expense?? You can get the job done perfectly well with just a baseball bat.
Right... so how do you explain Washington D.C., with the strongest anti-gun laws in the U.S., and also the highest rate of violent/gun-enforced crime?? (by which I mean where the gun is used to enforce compliance on the victim)
Conversely, various cities with easy-to-get concealed-carry permits have much lower violent crime rates. Gee, wonder why that is?
As the parent poster said, disarmed = victim. I'll bet there are big chunks of London where as a good citizen you'd sure as hell not go walking at night, because the resident thugs KNOW you're not armed....
I grew up in the era where every kid had REALISTIC toy guns, and every kid regularly and gleefully "killed" his friends whilst playing Cowboys and Indians. But we also knew that REAL guns were different from toys, even without overt education, because *adults took them seriously* -- an attitude not of fear like today, but as one would regard a tool meant for a specific job. Maybe it was because back then, most adult males still hunted, and an understanding does rub off on the kid that if you shoot something with a REAL gun, it is irrecoverably DEAD.
To a normal kid, who's been allowed to "just be a kid" and fall out of a few trees, rather than being coddled away from all possible threat, the distinction between TOOL and TOY is self-evident. No need to lock the TOOLS up (thus making them artificially attractive to kids), or prevent kids from examining them (as kids will no matter what -- hell, our guns were in an open cabinet, and even tho we'd sometimes look at them, we never shot each other!! We knew they weren't toys.)
Responsibility development, as you note, has indeed been "retarded" by the nanny mentality. And it's going to get worse, as a generation so afflicted make things "even safer" for their own kids.
Not being a network dude, this means little to me... be more specific, please? do you mean like using an anonymizer proxy, only for IPv6 functions instead? or is this a locally-run application? Use small words.:)
The problem with using other folks' proxies is that they tend to evaporate without notice... I'd be more interested in a local solution, I think.
I'm planning to move back to Montana, which has rejected RealID. It just occurred to me to wonder... what about the border between Canada, and Montana, as a state that will not require RealID??
Of course, you can always drive a few miles off the Interstate and use some farm road instead... at least til our gov't gets around to building the new Berlin Wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe folks here are mostly too young to remember, but back in the Win9x era, NVidia was also known for crappy drivers, and at a guess was responsible for 90% of the BSODs in systems that had NVidia cards installed. Their hardware was good, but what use is that if its driver keeps crashing the system??
(This is why my older systems all have Matrox video cards... they fucking NEVER crashed.)
I once hooked a live bat while fishing. I'm wondering if the same principle could be applied. ;)
Also, you've got a lot of warm-climate indifference in the quality of how stuff is built. The same storm in New England would have broken some windows and flooded some living rooms, but it wouldn't have washed away any houses.
Of course, building on flood plain is just plain stupid to start with.
This little cartoon says it all: http://nmallory.exit-23.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/fema.jpg
Oh good, I actually understood something! :)
:)
I've been looking at the Dubbele firewall, which is NetBSD-based and will run on any piece of crap (and comes with instructions that I actually halfway grok). http://www.dubbele.com/how_to_get.html Any thoughts?
Surplus old hardware is not a problem around here; I probably have 50 carcasses that would be up to the job
Per TFA, this fee would let you download, share, and generally do what folks are already doing, with the legal risk removed.
But as you say, I'll believe that they're totally indemnifying everyone, at every level, when I see it in cast-iron legalese.
The ad-supported filesharing client (implied by TFA) is really a better idea, in that there's no cash outlay (unless you want to pay the small fee to get rid of the ads) and you'd only pay if you actually used the service. And they could hardly complain if you shared files in an RIAA-supplied client!
Actually, that's a good thought -- let indie bands piggyback on successful acts (much as they do at concerts!) It could work like this:
Go to the NIN site, see endorsements for a dozen new indie bands, with an array of download options much like NIN is presently offering. And NIN takes a small cut (say 10% of sales) of the piggybackers' income, in trade for increasing their visibility beyond any hope they'd ever have even with a big-label contract.
I'd guess it was more like some ISP got sent a bunch of John Doe notices (of the sort NewYorkCountryLawyer has been fighting) and said to the RIAA cartel, "See here, this is getting ridiculous, why don't we try to work together instead?" and made some sort of revenue-sharing offer to the RIAA cartel. Who thought it sounded like a grand way to get a guaranteed revenue stream at absolutely no cost to themselves.
While I think the basic concept is all right (would I pay $5/mo. to download whatever the hell I want, without risk? Sure!), I don't think it should be *imposed* on everyone, since as many here have noted, not everyone wants the industry's general run of kark. And what's to prevent every content industry from wanting a piece of this new pie? as other posts note, the bill could get ridiculous, even if you're actually using most of it.
Sure. So criminals bring guns in from elsewhere, but the LAW-ABIDING citizens of Wash.D.C. are defenseless, thus easy targets.
Dallas has as much density and poverty, yet a lower gun crimes rate. Dallas allows concealed carry. Hmm....
Having had a couple face-offs with thugs, I can personally attest that a gun is a great equalizer, especially when the thug outweighs you by 200 lbs. and you know said thug has done hard time for assault (and is further known to have offed other thugs). My gun is why I am here typing this today, and not pushing up daisies.
"A committee is a creature with 6 or more legs, and no brain." -- R.A.Heinlein
Okay, I think I see... so if I were to set up a junk machine as a router (which I've been muttering about doing for a while anyway) then it could be, uh, squid'd into the job, yes?
That may be generally true, but to fit it to my point: when all law-abiding members of society are made gun-free, even poor criminals will be able to afford the necessary tools, since anyone can cut themselves a club from the nearest tree. So if you're a poverty-stricken criminal, no need to buy a black-market gun you can't afford, when your victims won't have guns anyway.
And even more laughable, TV bullets get stopped by cardboard boxes and sheetrock. Right.....
Side note: I have a silly habit of counting shots on TV shows. Most run one over reality, but I guess that's better than the infinite repeater of yesteryear!
Yep, I saw that post about "finding a gun", which partly inspired my reply above.
Montana public schools in the 1960s/70s provided some basic gun-safety classes (actually, they were required). Wonder if any schools do that now?
Bah, here in SoCal, once mommy is done coddling 'em, the state takes over. Hence it's common to see 30 year olds who behave more like they're 12 to 16.
Which is why Rome was quickly done fighting with Carthage, while we're still slogging it out in Iraq, and no end in sight.
That's why I hope that at least SOME of the senior officers still remember what they were taught about NOT following illegal orders -- and that at least SOME of the recruits are still taught this same concept.
Here is what most people don't grok about the 2nd Amendment:
It is NOT intended so that We the People can defend ourselves against an invader (tho that could be a useful side consequence).
It is intended so that if necessary, we can defend ourselves against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, if necessary by staging an armed revolt.
Remember that these people had just come out of a war for independence from an abusive gov't, and the whole concept was still fresh in their minds.
Apparently Americans today have entirely forgotten it... yet look at all the whining about gov't abuses (which objectively, are at presently rather worse than the British Crown's abuses on the Colonies).
"A man who defended himself is serving longer than those who were robbing him. An innocent man who has done nothing wrong has been imprisoned. The utter ridiculousness of the anti-defense movement is realized."
Upon refitting my tinfoil hat, I'm moved to comment that when the "unintended consequences" of defending yourself are so much more negative than being a crime victim that no one DARES defend themselves, the people have been reduced to extremely herdable sheep, ever so much easier for the gov't to deal with, as the people have been well-taught to never, ever resist no matter what.
And unless you keep your kid in a glass bubble, YOUR gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, etc. may not be the ONLY gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, etc, that your kid encounters. What happens when a gun-ignorant kid finds a gun on the street, or when his equally gun-ignorant friend shows him the nifty "toy gun" he found in daddy's army locker?
I knew real guns from (realistic) toy guns by the time I was five years old, but I grew up with both in the house (and nothing locked up). I doubt that most kids today could tell a realistic toy from the real thing.
Maybe kids wouldn't believe those things if adults didn't try to "soften the blow" by telling kids all sorts of BS, like "grandma is in heaven now" (even if that's your religious belief, it's not how a little kid will interpret that) or "Spot will be okay, he just can't live with us anymore" after Spot gets killed in the road.
While the motivation of reducing kids' anxiety is good on the surface, encouraging fantasy beliefs actually works the other way around. Kids can handle just about anything if you're HONEST with them. But if you try to hide stuff, kids KNOW something is amiss, and worry that much more about it.
I've also noticed that most little kids are perfectly aware of what's real and what's fantasy -- UNTIL an adult tells them that something the kid knows is fantasy is "in fact real", and confuses the issue -- from the kid's POV it goes like this: "I thought adults knew what they're talking about?? why do they believe Santa is real? *I* knew Santa was pretend; now I'm not so sure."
Well, see, the nice thing about knowing that your prospective victim isn't packing a gun, is that you don't have to pack a gun either; why incur needless expense?? You can get the job done perfectly well with just a baseball bat.
Right... so how do you explain Washington D.C., with the strongest anti-gun laws in the U.S., and also the highest rate of violent/gun-enforced crime?? (by which I mean where the gun is used to enforce compliance on the victim)
Conversely, various cities with easy-to-get concealed-carry permits have much lower violent crime rates. Gee, wonder why that is?
As the parent poster said, disarmed = victim. I'll bet there are big chunks of London where as a good citizen you'd sure as hell not go walking at night, because the resident thugs KNOW you're not armed....
I grew up in the era where every kid had REALISTIC toy guns, and every kid regularly and gleefully "killed" his friends whilst playing Cowboys and Indians. But we also knew that REAL guns were different from toys, even without overt education, because *adults took them seriously* -- an attitude not of fear like today, but as one would regard a tool meant for a specific job. Maybe it was because back then, most adult males still hunted, and an understanding does rub off on the kid that if you shoot something with a REAL gun, it is irrecoverably DEAD.
To a normal kid, who's been allowed to "just be a kid" and fall out of a few trees, rather than being coddled away from all possible threat, the distinction between TOOL and TOY is self-evident. No need to lock the TOOLS up (thus making them artificially attractive to kids), or prevent kids from examining them (as kids will no matter what -- hell, our guns were in an open cabinet, and even tho we'd sometimes look at them, we never shot each other!! We knew they weren't toys.)
Responsibility development, as you note, has indeed been "retarded" by the nanny mentality. And it's going to get worse, as a generation so afflicted make things "even safer" for their own kids.
Not being a network dude, this means little to me... be more specific, please? do you mean like using an anonymizer proxy, only for IPv6 functions instead? or is this a locally-run application? Use small words. :)
The problem with using other folks' proxies is that they tend to evaporate without notice... I'd be more interested in a local solution, I think.
"Bones! I! have! finally! learned! punctuation!"
Hmm. I think you're right. Best close the border forthwith!
No matter; Stan Rogers more than made up for 'em :)
I'm planning to move back to Montana, which has rejected RealID. It just occurred to me to wonder... what about the border between Canada, and Montana, as a state that will not require RealID??
... at least til our gov't gets around to building the new Berlin Wall.
Of course, you can always drive a few miles off the Interstate and use some farm road instead