"kill off any unneeded modules (come on, how many of you actually use mod_userdir or mod_rewrite"
Are you kidding? If anything, those are the two that are the handiest. Ever use short urls? That's mod_rewrite for you. Ever have users with their own public_html? That's mod_userdir.
Really, if you're going to pick on something, pick on, um, maybe mod_speling. (no that's not a spelling mistake - its a module that tries to guess what you really wanted if you misspelled a url, rather than just sending a 404, and even that doesn't take up much resources, since its only called in the event a request would generate a 404, not on success, so even mod_speling isn't "evil").
My point was that its stupid to continue to be locked into one tech because you're "already using it." Or are you still browsing the internet using Chameleon on Compuserve with an old 286 and Windows 3.0?
The guy is arguing with himself - the first 2 reasons:
MySQL Uses the GPL
MySQL Doesn't Use the GPL
Oh, boo-hoo, dual-license bad!
The rest of the article is equally stupid. For example, "If you already own proprietary licenses..." has NOTHING to do with whether Mysql is a good fit or not. Next it will be "I hae Pepsi in the fridge; I really want a glass of free cold water or a bottle of Coke right now, but I'll buy some more Pepsi instead seeing as I've already standardized on it".
I'll repeat it: Think about the damage heavily sugared and equally heavily salted soft drinks are doing. Who's defending this shit?
The junk food manufacturers like HFCS because it makes you feel even more hungry. Eliminate the HFCS and people will start getting healthier. Or do you think that people actually WANT to be overweight? What sort of fucktard are you?
And yes, people ARE responsible for what they put in their mouths. When
you have more chins than Mount Rushmore,
you were offered a starring role in "The Titanic" - as the iceberg,
you're one of the landmarks on both Google Maps AND Visual Flight Rules charts,
the scale says "one at a time, please",
people get nervous when you get on an elevator,
you can't see your feet,
you can't reach around to wipe your arse properly,
you have to literally roll out of bed in the morning,
you have to have your steering wheel changed to a small custom wheel because otherwise you don't fit,
your shoes split after a week,
the "all-you-can-eat" says "no - you take doggy bag and go home now",
you can't get clean because a shower only gets the top half (the rest is in "fat shade land"),
the post office issues you TWO zip codes - one for each "cheek",
you suntan and people complain about the smell of rancid cooking oil,
the police give you a ticket for not having a backup alarm - and you were walking,
Jabba the Hut asks you to stand beside him, so he'll look skinny by comparison,
you have more garbage each week than any three other families on the street,
you drive an SUV because that's the only vehicle that you fit in,
you cannonballed into the pool - and emptied it,
you cannonballed into the ocean - "SURFS UP!"
the escalator grinds to a halt when you step on it...
you have to take part of the blame too, because you didn't just "get that way" suddenly. You ATE that elephant, one mouthfull at a time.
People want to lose weight but they don't want to do the ONE thing that would succeed - shutting their pie-holes. Go in line at the supermarket and see what the fat people buy. Shit I wouldn't feed my dogs. Nobody's got a gun to their heads forcing them to spend their money on it. They're so fat that they have a hard time breathing, but don't you get between them and their Doritos.
When I see a family of four, and together they weigh more than 3/4 of a ton (I kid you not - I couldn't believe it - wish I had had my cell phone with me so I could take a video) and they have 3 shopping carts overflowing with JUNK JUNK JUNK, they are part of the problem. They want their "fix", same as any other crackhead. But for the lesser cases, removing HFCS from the diet would be the deciding factory in getting their weight back to normal.
You're ignoring the fact that HFCS depresses the "I'm full" signal, which is why taking in lots of HFCS makes people eat more junk food - they feel hungry because their bodies tell them they aren't full even when they've already eaten enough. Taking in the equivalent of 60 glasses of OJ of fructose is going to screw up anyone's metabolism.
These kids weren't drinking "a lot" of fruit juice
Did you even READ the article?
"The average daily consumption of pure fruit juice in the study population was 4.1 ounces (about half a cup) -- an amount in line with recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
.. half a cup - that's 45 calories. Not even half an Oreo cookie.
Even if they were to drink 4x as much, that's still pretty much nothing in comparison to what the average kid is drinking in terms of soda pop... a 2 litre bottle of coke is 770 calories - and a lot of kids are drinking a 2 liter a day.
The study is from 6 years ago.. and even then, it notes that under-reporting of soft drink and "sweetened beverages" - another term for junk calorie drinks like gatorade and "sports drinks" that contain little if no "real fruit juice" is a problem.
Fat people lie about how much they eat. They loie to themselves, they lie to their friends, their doctors. There was a study published in Scientific American (before the web) where they placed FREE vending machines in a room and let people eat as much as they wanted. They monitored who ate what, and the fatties continually SEVERELY under-reported whatthey ate.
Why not stop trolling (4 or 8 ounces of OJ is NOT a lot) and look in the real world... take a visit to your local supermarket checkout and look at all the fat people and what's in their shopping baskets. Then look at their kids... the next generation of over-sugared, over-salted fatties.
Some of these people are so fat I can't imagine how they take care of basic bodily functions like wiping after they've used the toilet. How can they reach when they're so BIG and their arms are like overstuffed sausages. How does the toilet not break under all that weight?
Or maybe they don't, and these are the people who are buying all those adult diapers.
Think about the damage heavily sugared and equally heavily salted soft drinks are doing. Who's defending this shit? Just follow the money... fast fod joints, soda pop manufacturers, others who are already fatty faty 2 by 4's, can't get through the bathroom doors, and want some (preferrably even fatter) company, so they don't look so fat themselves in comparison.
Its easier to feed the kids dogs, tater tots, and a coke and not miss that "must see" crap on the tube than it is to actually take 20 minutes to make a decent meal.
What's served for breakfast in most homes is a crime. A bowl of cereal is not breakfast. Take the time to start with a decent, REAL breakfast, and maybe kids (and adults) won't be so interested in scrounging for those extra junk calories all day.
Or just walk around with a few laser pointers strapped to your head, lik a shark, and randomly zap the cameras as you stroll along. Just don't look at any airplains or helicopters, or you'll be arrested as a "terr'rist."
(yes, I tested blinding a security camera with a laser pointer. You can easily do it from 10 meters if you can rest your hand on something, like a desk or counter, and "walk" the beam to the camera. It was fun watching the resulting image "bloom").
"the [capitalist, for-profit] corporation is legally bound to hold its shareholder interests above everything"
No, its not. Try again. It is only legally bound to what is in the documents of incorporation. Unlike you, I've owned a corporation, and purposefully ran it into the ground when it was to my personal benefit, after having a shareholders' meeting where I held the proxies for all the voting stock.
The non-voting stock had no say in the matter. Everything was duly noted in the minute books.
Really? Show me ONE court where a corporation can testify on its own.
They can't - only duly appointed representatives can.
The corporation is a "legal fiction", as opposed to humans, which the law describes as "moral persons". For the purpose of running a business with limited liability, the fiction of a "legal person" is created, which has limited rights under the law; otherwise, instead of the corporation contracting debts, the individual members would have to, which would defeat the whole idea of a limited-liabiity corporation (Why do you think they're called "Ltd."? Its because their liability is limited to the assests that are held in common by the corporation, and not the individual partners personal assets). This "legal person", created for the purpose of contracting debts, etc., has no constitutional rights.
First off, "legal person" just means that the corporation can obtain debts, sign contracts, etc., in its name - it doesn't have the same rights as what are known in law as "moral persons" - real, flesh-and-blood humans.
Also, corporations do not have a legal duty to make a profit, no matter what. This is bullshit that has been perpetuated for way to long on slashdot and other sites. Quite the contrary, many corporations are set uo to run at a loss. Tax shelters, non-profits, charities, philanthopic foundations... these are just some examples.
Just as a corporation does not have a legal duty to maximize shareholder profit - another fiction.
If the shareholders agree to it, a corporation can even liquidate itself and give itself away to some homeless person. There is no law other than the rule of the marketplace as to whether a corporation runs at a profit or not, and there is no obligation to maximize any such profits.
... as opposed to a moral person, endowed with specific rights that the corporation as only a "legal person", doesn't enjoy.
The law's a funny thing - what it appears to say and what it really means are often two different things.
By "legal person", the law doesn't suddenly make a corporation a person, except for the ability to contract debts, etc., in the name of the corporation (the "corporate shield"). This way, "moral persons" - real flesh and blood human beings - are not liable for the corporations' debts.
Again "legal person", in reference to corporations, specifically means they have FEWER rights than people.
"iologically speaking, you are correct, however I thought US law effectively made a corporate entity a "person" with said rights."
Nope. Corporations can't vote, hold office, etc. They can't even sign agreements (only authorized representatives - REAL people - can sign, and they need to be authorized by other REAL people (sorry for the caps:-); if its a high-enough level, then it needs to be a board meeting that grants the authorization).
"I would assume (read: hope and pray) that it would require more than just a $50,000 check to register such a domain. Preferably some equally foolproof way of ensuring that it really is a representative of the bank that's registering the domain."
Three things:
If you already have a foolproof way, you don't need this bogus system;
Just because you work at a bank doesn't mean you're 100% honest, 100% of the time, and unblackmailable;
This doesn't address the other problems - domain spoofing, dns poisoning, etc.
In other words, this is REALLY a STUPID idea. The only stupider ideas were (1) submitting it to slashdot, and (2) slashdot posting it. Slow news day, huh?
"However, if they did not wave those rights in the contracts with customers, then their argument seems sound to me."
Companies aren't people, and as such do not have the same rights that people have. Verizon is grasping at straws to avoid having their ass handed to them in a class-action lawsuit.
Exactly. For $50,000, I get a domain that people will "know" is phish-proof. A decent scammer can make tht back in a day if everyone "knows" its "the real bank" and lets their guard down...
People who think this will work are also gonna love "security through obscurity."
... wel, you can always email them the link, and "explain" that you're using an alternate port as "security through obscurity" (people who don't know $@@ will eat it up:-)
Alternatively, you can have a door page that sits on a server elsewhere on port 80, and does a redirect.
Slashdot Mirror
"kill off any unneeded modules (come on, how many of you actually use mod_userdir or mod_rewrite"
Are you kidding? If anything, those are the two that are the handiest. Ever use short urls? That's mod_rewrite for you. Ever have users with their own public_html? That's mod_userdir.
Really, if you're going to pick on something, pick on, um, maybe mod_speling. (no that's not a spelling mistake - its a module that tries to guess what you really wanted if you misspelled a url, rather than just sending a 404, and even that doesn't take up much resources, since its only called in the event a request would generate a 404, not on success, so even mod_speling isn't "evil").
"And fried chicken, mmmm..."
This is true. Why do they post "content-free" stuff on Fridays? (okay - they do it all the time, just MORE so on Fridays :-)
My point was that its stupid to continue to be locked into one tech because you're "already using it." Or are you still browsing the internet using Chameleon on Compuserve with an old 286 and Windows 3.0?
Oh, boo-hoo, dual-license bad!
The rest of the article is equally stupid. For example, "If you already own proprietary licenses ..." has NOTHING to do with whether Mysql is a good fit or not. Next it will be "I hae Pepsi in the fridge; I really want a glass of free cold water or a bottle of Coke right now, but I'll buy some more Pepsi instead seeing as I've already standardized on it".
"...you realize that Jack Thompson will have something to say about this."
Maybe something like "Murders Are No Cause For Games!"
In his mind we, live in Soviet Russia, where Games Shoot You. When ARE they going to throw his sorry ass in jail for being a public nuisance?
I'll repeat it: Think about the damage heavily sugared and equally heavily salted soft drinks are doing. Who's defending this shit?
The junk food manufacturers like HFCS because it makes you feel even more hungry. Eliminate the HFCS and people will start getting healthier. Or do you think that people actually WANT to be overweight? What sort of fucktard are you?
And yes, people ARE responsible for what they put in their mouths. When
- you have more chins than Mount Rushmore,
- you were offered a starring role in "The Titanic" - as the iceberg,
- you're one of the landmarks on both Google Maps AND Visual Flight Rules charts,
- the scale says "one at a time, please",
- people get nervous when you get on an elevator,
- you can't see your feet,
- you can't reach around to wipe your arse properly,
- you have to literally roll out of bed in the morning,
- you have to have your steering wheel changed to a small custom wheel because otherwise you don't fit,
- your shoes split after a week,
- the "all-you-can-eat" says "no - you take doggy bag and go home now",
- you can't get clean because a shower only gets the top half (the rest is in "fat shade land"),
- the post office issues you TWO zip codes - one for each "cheek",
- you suntan and people complain about the smell of rancid cooking oil,
- the police give you a ticket for not having a backup alarm - and you were walking,
- Jabba the Hut asks you to stand beside him, so he'll look skinny by comparison,
- you have more garbage each week than any three other families on the street,
- you drive an SUV because that's the only vehicle that you fit in,
- you cannonballed into the pool - and emptied it,
- you cannonballed into the ocean - "SURFS UP!"
- the escalator grinds to a halt when you step on it
...
you have to take part of the blame too, because you didn't just "get that way" suddenly. You ATE that elephant, one mouthfull at a time.People want to lose weight but they don't want to do the ONE thing that would succeed - shutting their pie-holes. Go in line at the supermarket and see what the fat people buy. Shit I wouldn't feed my dogs. Nobody's got a gun to their heads forcing them to spend their money on it. They're so fat that they have a hard time breathing, but don't you get between them and their Doritos.
When I see a family of four, and together they weigh more than 3/4 of a ton (I kid you not - I couldn't believe it - wish I had had my cell phone with me so I could take a video) and they have 3 shopping carts overflowing with JUNK JUNK JUNK, they are part of the problem. They want their "fix", same as any other crackhead. But for the lesser cases, removing HFCS from the diet would be the deciding factory in getting their weight back to normal.
You're ignoring the fact that HFCS depresses the "I'm full" signal, which is why taking in lots of HFCS makes people eat more junk food - they feel hungry because their bodies tell them they aren't full even when they've already eaten enough. Taking in the equivalent of 60 glasses of OJ of fructose is going to screw up anyone's metabolism.
These kids weren't drinking "a lot" of fruit juice
Did you even READ the article?
"The average daily consumption of pure fruit juice in the study population was 4.1 ounces (about half a cup) -- an amount in line with recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
.. half a cup - that's 45 calories. Not even half an Oreo cookie.
Even if they were to drink 4x as much, that's still pretty much nothing in comparison to what the average kid is drinking in terms of soda pop ... a 2 litre bottle of coke is 770 calories - and a lot of kids are drinking a 2 liter a day.
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sept04/popkin0916 04.html
The study is from 6 years ago .. and even then, it notes that under-reporting of soft drink and "sweetened beverages" - another term for junk calorie drinks like gatorade and "sports drinks" that contain little if no "real fruit juice" is a problem.
Fat people lie about how much they eat. They loie to themselves, they lie to their friends, their doctors. There was a study published in Scientific American (before the web) where they placed FREE vending machines in a room and let people eat as much as they wanted. They monitored who ate what, and the fatties continually SEVERELY under-reported whatthey ate.
Why not stop trolling (4 or 8 ounces of OJ is NOT a lot) and look in the real world ... take a visit to your local supermarket checkout and look at all the fat people and what's in their shopping baskets. Then look at their kids ... the next generation of over-sugared, over-salted fatties.
Some of these people are so fat I can't imagine how they take care of basic bodily functions like wiping after they've used the toilet. How can they reach when they're so BIG and their arms are like overstuffed sausages. How does the toilet not break under all that weight?
Or maybe they don't, and these are the people who are buying all those adult diapers.
Think about the damage heavily sugared and equally heavily salted soft drinks are doing. Who's defending this shit? Just follow the money ... fast fod joints, soda pop manufacturers, others who are already fatty faty 2 by 4's, can't get through the bathroom doors, and want some (preferrably even fatter) company, so they don't look so fat themselves in comparison.
Its easier to feed the kids dogs, tater tots, and a coke and not miss that "must see" crap on the tube than it is to actually take 20 minutes to make a decent meal.
What's served for breakfast in most homes is a crime. A bowl of cereal is not breakfast. Take the time to start with a decent, REAL breakfast, and maybe kids (and adults) won't be so interested in scrounging for those extra junk calories all day.
"A pair of dark glasses"
s/dark/mirrored/;
Or just walk around with a few laser pointers strapped to your head, lik a shark, and randomly zap the cameras as you stroll along. Just don't look at any airplains or helicopters, or you'll be arrested as a "terr'rist."
(yes, I tested blinding a security camera with a laser pointer. You can easily do it from 10 meters if you can rest your hand on something, like a desk or counter, and "walk" the beam to the camera. It was fun watching the resulting image "bloom").
"the [capitalist, for-profit] corporation is legally bound to hold its shareholder interests above everything"
No, its not. Try again. It is only legally bound to what is in the documents of incorporation. Unlike you, I've owned a corporation, and purposefully ran it into the ground when it was to my personal benefit, after having a shareholders' meeting where I held the proxies for all the voting stock.
The non-voting stock had no say in the matter. Everything was duly noted in the minute books.
Perfectly legal. Also, a nice tax dodge.
Really? Show me ONE court where a corporation can testify on its own.
They can't - only duly appointed representatives can.
The corporation is a "legal fiction", as opposed to humans, which the law describes as "moral persons". For the purpose of running a business with limited liability, the fiction of a "legal person" is created, which has limited rights under the law; otherwise, instead of the corporation contracting debts, the individual members would have to, which would defeat the whole idea of a limited-liabiity corporation (Why do you think they're called "Ltd."? Its because their liability is limited to the assests that are held in common by the corporation, and not the individual partners personal assets). This "legal person", created for the purpose of contracting debts, etc., has no constitutional rights.
No they aren't - they're what the law calls "legal people" - able to contract debts, etc ... not "moral people" - flesh-and-blood humans.
Go spend a few years in courtrooms, and maybe you'll understand the difference.
Also, corporations do not have a legal duty to make a profit, no matter what. This is bullshit that has been perpetuated for way to long on slashdot and other sites. Quite the contrary, many corporations are set uo to run at a loss. Tax shelters, non-profits, charities, philanthopic foundations ... these are just some examples.
Just as a corporation does not have a legal duty to maximize shareholder profit - another fiction.
If the shareholders agree to it, a corporation can even liquidate itself and give itself away to some homeless person. There is no law other than the rule of the marketplace as to whether a corporation runs at a profit or not, and there is no obligation to maximize any such profits.
... as opposed to a moral person, endowed with specific rights that the corporation as only a "legal person", doesn't enjoy.
The law's a funny thing - what it appears to say and what it really means are often two different things.
By "legal person", the law doesn't suddenly make a corporation a person, except for the ability to contract debts, etc., in the name of the corporation (the "corporate shield"). This way, "moral persons" - real flesh and blood human beings - are not liable for the corporations' debts.
Again "legal person", in reference to corporations, specifically means they have FEWER rights than people.
"No, it wouldn't, because a corporation is just a group of individual people, acting in a common interest"
A corporation is a legal fiction, a shell with limited liability; it has fewer rights than you do, and don't forget it or you're just another sheeple.
I just checked by going to log into my bank, and its only https ... I wonder how widespread this "http" problem really is?
"iologically speaking, you are correct, however I thought US law effectively made a corporate entity a "person" with said rights."
Nope. Corporations can't vote, hold office, etc. They can't even sign agreements (only authorized representatives - REAL people - can sign, and they need to be authorized by other REAL people (sorry for the caps :-); if its a high-enough level, then it needs to be a board meeting that grants the authorization).
"But can you really trust your money to a bank that doesn't even offer the option of a secure login page?""
But can you really trust your money to a web browser and operating system that are the most hijacked in the world?"
There, fixed it for you.
"I would assume (read: hope and pray) that it would require more than just a $50,000 check to register such a domain. Preferably some equally foolproof way of ensuring that it really is a representative of the bank that's registering the domain."
Three things:
In other words, this is REALLY a STUPID idea. The only stupider ideas were (1) submitting it to slashdot, and (2) slashdot posting it. Slow news day, huh?
"However, if they did not wave those rights in the contracts with customers, then their argument seems sound to me."
Companies aren't people, and as such do not have the same rights that people have. Verizon is grasping at straws to avoid having their ass handed to them in a class-action lawsuit.
"Neither of those would work, since your main domain name needs to be at least three characters."
Nope. Look at gc.ca as a counter-example. I'm sure there are others ...
Exactly. For $50,000, I get a domain that people will "know" is phish-proof. A decent scammer can make tht back in a day if everyone "knows" its "the real bank" and lets their guard down ...
People who think this will work are also gonna love "security through obscurity."
"And Bill Gates isn't even the CEO of Microsoft anymore. He is the chairman."
I thought steve ("I'll fucking bury them") is the "chair-man" ...
... wel, you can always email them the link, and "explain" that you're using an alternate port as "security through obscurity" (people who don't know $@@ will eat it up :-)
Alternatively, you can have a door page that sits on a server elsewhere on port 80, and does a redirect.