Heh. 31% of the float is shorted. See here. At what point do you start worrying about short squeezes?
Worry about a short squeeze on a falling stock? Do you get your smoking supplies from Darl? A short squeeze is only an issue when the stock price shoots up, which (IMHO) SCO is very unlikely to do.
One issue I have had with KDE is that the devices (fd0, sound) are only available to the user who logs in first. I don't know if that is a KDE bug.
*smile* I almost included that in my note (it's part of my general-system-frendliness process). Provided that the system is only accessable to trusted people (people that won't pipe fart.au to the speakers when someone else is trying to work), you can just:
chmod a+rw/dev/dsp*
to give everyone access to audio in/out. I think that will do what you want.
Why not post the code here? Sounds like a nifty method.
Here it is, in bite-sized chunks. First, the command to launch X on the current tty:
startx --:`tty | tail -c 2` vt`tty | tail -c 2`
Note the back-ticks. If you call this "win", make it executable, and put it in the happy place of your choice, you can do an number of interesting tricks with it.
You can set the system to come up in mode 3 (see the top of/etc/inittab) and then call it from the end of each user's.bash_profile (though depending on which terminal program they use, it may cause trouble if they try to launch an xterm, which you could guard against with a check for $TERM == "xterm" or whatever).
Same deal but make it their default shell in/etc/passwd
If you don't even want to have them log in, you could do something like "su - -c win [username]" as in etc/inittab like so:
1:2345:respawn:/sbin/su - -c win alice
2:2345:respawn:/sbin/su - -c win bob
3:2345:respawn:/sbin/su - -c win carol
There will be a little fussing needed to get it working the way you want in your environment of course. The only two real gotcha's I've seen: 1) make sure they can't have processor intensive screen savers running, or it will be dog slow, and 2) either educate your users or remove the easy "reboot" options so they don't nuke each other (examples, gnome & KDE bye-bye dialogs, Ctrl-Alt-Del (also in intitab), etc.).
If you are really wanting to do a thorough job on the cheap, there are various places on the net were you can get a team of experts on it for no charge, just by posting their IP addresses, etc.
Reporting is a problem though.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Hint for the humour-challenged: this is the kind of post that comes with a "hint for the humour-challenged" attached.
It could be anything from vt1 to vt12 (Ctrl-Alt-F1 to Ctrl-Alt-F12)--higher, actually, but there aren't simple key chords for those.
And rather than having them do a (manual) startx--and presuming that the machine is in an environment where walk-up-security isn't an issue--just replace the getty-flavour-of-your-choice in/etc/intittab with a scrupt that does something along the lines of "su - -c='startx -:-...(formulas to grab this vt number in the right format)' (the user who gets this vt)".
If you're really interested, respond and I'll grab the exacts from one of the machines we have set up that way.
If you limit them to low-impact screen savers (no realtime ray tracing or other cpu-hog bloat code) you could give them each their own session (and they could hop back & forth with Alt-F<your number here>); that way, even if one of them is in the middle of something, they could yield the system to someone else without needing to close or exit anything (although it's generally a good idea to save!).
We've used this sort of setup at work with reasonable success, though we did have to break a few MS-scarred individuals of thinking they had to reboot all the time.
And if everybody else remembers things the way you do, we can change history to however we see fit!
For example: Hitler never lost the war! The Russians crushed the rest of Europe under the weight of a million tanks! Japan nuked the United States! And Gore won in 2000!
You're missing my point. I am not saying that my recolection is right or wrong, merely that it disagrees with the (present) contents of a web site. I am not claiming that my memory is the ultimate arbitor of history, nor am I willing to bestow that honour on a web site, no matter who runs it.
Look at it this way: if some web site started claiming that the week was six days long, and that there was not and had never been a day called "Tuesday," would you claim that the fact that "everybody rememberes things the way I do" meant we were "chaning history however we see fit"? Or would you doubt the accuracy of the web page?
As I recall, Microsoft tradermarked 'Microsoft Windows' and were explicitly told that 'Windows' would not be trademarkable. Whereas Mr. Robertson sells his product as 'LindowsOS'.
I recall that as well. In fact, I even recall researching it at USPTO.GOV, and confirming it. So imagine my shock when, in a recent/. debate, I was told that this was not the case, with provided USPTO.GOV links. I searched again, and could no longer find the restriction.
Specifically, I recall that:
Microsoft's first application for the trademark was in 1983 for some sort of audio visual software, not for MS Windows-as-we-know-it.
That the granted trademark for the "graphical computer user interface software and related manuals" was specifically for "Microsoft Windows" and/or "MS Windows" not just Windows.
There was a "restriction letter" of some sort that limited their mark to 1) including a logo, and 2) including their name or initials, and/or some product designation (e.g. Windows NT) for which they may have had to apply seperately.
But this isn't what the second search seemed to show.
I've got no idea what happened, but I'm glad someone else remembers it the way I do.
and argues for what he calls the 'Law of Disassembly,' that 'every MNT product must be disassemblable by at least one [of several possible methods].' The article ends with some good suggestions for raising awareness of this important issue. Gratuitous quote: This is disturbingly reminiscent of "nuclear power will give us clean limitless energy, and don't worry, we'll deal with the byproducts later because we'll have the tools by then.
This is idiotic. Any reasonable MNT device will be mostly carbon in a form very like diamond. Yes, diamond is cool; it's hard, light weight, etc. But it isn't some SciFi ubermatter. For instance, it burns pretty much the same way coal and graphite do.
As for the products of MNT, it depends a heck of a lot on what is beeing made. Is he seriously suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to use MNT to produce clean drinking water for third world countries unless we have a way to disassemble it? Or he just techo-fearmongering without bothering to be serious?
I will agree though, it is disturbingly reminiscent of the FUD that was spread about nuclear power by the fossil fuel industry that has done so much for the environment (not to mention world peace).
Forget the map. What you need to do is find a way to get an analog signal strength reading (either with a device designed for the job, or hacking something on a laptop to (say) pipe a running digital signal strength value out the dsp to the earphone jack) and run it into an op-amp setup that will 1) give you decent current and 2) give you an inverted signal as well. Run these two signals to two actuators. Hook the inverted one to a can of red spray paint,and the un-inverted one to a can of blue spray pant.
Do this with the power off.
Go outside, make sure the cans are facing away from you, power up, and walk around.
From then on, the parts of campus with a blue tinge will be the ones with good signal, and the red areas will be the ones to avoid. Easy rule to learn, and no maps to deal with.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. You may need to go over some parts of campus (esp. plants, artwork, etc. that may be strongly coloured) with a coat of gray primer first. I suggest you just play around with it till you get something usable.
I don't need people in lab coats to do a double blind experiment.
The lab coats aren't important, but the other people are. What you described is not a "double blind" test in any meaningful sense of the word. For that you'd need:
A statistically significant number of people to test on
Someone to prepare the test materials in such a way that the only difference is what is being tested such that
one set has the substance being tested
the other set does not
...but there is no way to tell which is which.
some way to provide the materials to the testers and receive their reports such that no information about the identity of the sets could be transmitted.
The situation you described has none of these properties. For example, it sounds as if you only look for the cause of the migranes when you actually have them. Thus you might consume aspertame many times with no ill effects and never realize it. Or there might be some unsuspected problem with some preservative that is often (but not only) used in products containing aspertame. Or...but you get the idea.
The sort of report you give provides sufficent reason to investigate with a double blind study, but is not in and of iteslf a double blind study, no mater how often it happens.
The whole anti-aspartame case is based on an urban legend, which started, IIRC, with some "research" published to promote a stock fraud scheme by a "food science" professor at ASU (Arizona State University). Dispite the chemical implausibility of the reactions he proposed (unfavorable reaction paths that require odd conditions + heat to occur even in theory, no repeatable demonstration of them under any condition) has taken on a life of its own. Many people (on both sides) have a vested interest in "winning." The actual data (as opposed to anecdotal reports / internet rumours) to date strongly support the aspertame-is-safe view.
I do not wish to belittle your migranes (they are not pleasent, I know) but simply to point out that it is exceedingly unlikely that aspertame per se is the cause, or if it is the mechanism is not what is popularly claimed. If you are willing to make temporary sacrafice to help resolve the matter, you may want to see if there are any double blind studies being conducted on aspertame in which you could participate. The usual setup is that people who suspect they are sensitive to it are given (on two different days) a sealed pill that either contains aspertame or some inert substance. Neither they nor the person giving them the pills knows on which day they get which. The last I heard (late 1990's) they were still trying to find some greater-than-chance corelation.
If nothing else, it may help you learn more about what you need to avoid.
Some believe that the function of government is to arm itself to the teeth to protect the life and property of its citizens, not to give health care and schooling and nannying its citizens.
I would buy the protecting part (and am certainly no fan of nannying) though I'm not so sure about the arming-to-the-teeth bit. Especially when many of the people we arm/train/support (bin Laden springs to mind) later turn out to be great threats to our security. Why do we have to sell/give weapons to so many foreign governments?
And why are we ignoring the North Koreans, who do have weapons that could hurt us, and focusing on poor countries in the Middle East that can't? And don't drag in the WTC/Pentagon attacks--that was planned, financed, and executed by Saudis (our "friends"), not Iraqis.
There are many good, sound reasons for going to space; "arming-to-the-teeth" is not, IMHO, one of them.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. As for the rest, if the current news isn't enough, I'm willing to wait and let history convince you.
Hindsight says was were wrong about the state of the Iraqi weapons programs, not that we were lied to.
Nothing in the information available to GWB said that there were stockpiles of WMD, yet he repeatedly said that we had proof that there were massive stockpiles and that we knew where they were. That's what's called a lie.
That would be like me saying its going to be sunny tommorrow, when infact it might be rainy.
No, that would be like you saying that you had proof that it was going to rain when in fact all you had was a forecast that said it probably wouldn't rain much.
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
So, is 300,000 dead Iraqis a matter of concern to you? Is 500+ US lives worth 300,000 Iraqi graves? Saddam had more of a body count that we could even try for short of intentionally targetting civilians. Lets do some simple math now.
And it's presently so safe and peaceful there that no Iraqis are dieing?
US did nothing for 10 years: 300,000 known deaths
US invades: ~500 US deaths after 1 year
No invasion: 30,000 deaths a year on average
Invasion: less than 30,000 average (I do not know the numbers for non-US folks, but I am sure that the number comes in less than 30,000).
The very nature of your statistics disturbs me. How is it we all know so much about the Iraqi deaths in the years durring which we weren't present (and had demonstratbly bad intelligence) but have only guesses about how many have died while we were there and watching? Dosn't that seem even a little bit odd to you?
Who values lives again?
Presumably, we all do. The issue is, would we rather devote them to going into space or killing each other.
Now, Bush happens to also present some ideas for getting us into space and also a permanent settlement on the moon and beyond on mars. How do you feel about that? Should we not actually try this, or should we only work on satalite tellescopes? Or because Bush presented the idea should we scrap it?
By all means, we should do it. Too bad we're broke now, having spent more than we have on that whole arming-to-the-teeth thing.
The reason only 500+ US soldiers have died is because we value life so highly. We spend billions to keep our troops armed to the teeth with the best weapons and machinery possible.
Yes, and the reason the number was as high as it was is that we were lied to. So?
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
The point of the poster you replied to was that (and I sense you agree) some things are worth risking your life for. All you seem to differ on is what those things are. I personally would rather risk my life to get mankind into space than I would risk it to get GWB a second term.
No, no, no, to the law only matters whose communication it is.
Fine, but that doesn't change my point.
So, my mailbox in the company account is mine. It's my communication.
It might be, but it might be someone you have never met trying to contact the company to get a problem resolved, order something, etc.
My point is and was that you can't reasonably assume that all mail that comes to someone's e-mail account at work is an attempt to communicate with them and not an attempt to communicate with the company. If bdp@cryptic.com is answered by a guy named Bruce for a while and then subsequently given to someone named Betty, it might be a case where she's getting his personal communications (e.g. he's Bruce Donald Parsly and she's Betty Due Purdy), or it might be the company's (e.g., they both handle support for the company's Best Darned Product (tm) and he's just been promoted to janitor, leaving her stuck withall the support mail).
The point? You can't tell for sure without more information.
NOT here in Brasil. E-mail is by law on par with telephonical communications, so tapping without judicial warrant is a crime. Total privacy is expected.
You, but no matter where you are a lot hinges on whose account it was--the company's or the employee's. Sometimes, it's obvious (bob.smith.personal@company.com or customer.service@company.com) but most of the time it's not. Many small companies have customers direct mail to an individual ("just send me your shipping info and I'll get that right out to you; my e-mail is bob@company.com") and personal mail occasionaly gets sent to company accounts.
I'd say the correct answer is to let them have what they requested in good faith. In any case, if you don't trust them, you shouldn't be hosting them.
That's for HTTP (where it isn't meaningful anyway) not HTTPS (where it is). The point though is that simply permitting the schema doesn't mean the browser isn't standards compliant, since in some cases it should be allowed. The real issue is, are there bugs in the handling that can be exploited, to which the answer clearly is "yes".
Sadly, though, it shows the reputation that Linux zealots have made for themselves, not that it is any justification for this.
Made for themselves?
This is a classic case of blame-the-victim. Someone gets maligned in the press, slandered by corporate greed machines, and somehow this is because of "the reputation [they] made for themselves?"
I supose your next line will be that they were "just asking for it" because of the way they were dressed.
The problem is that IE is *not* standards compliant because it allows URLs with the user:passwd@host scheme.
No, that's part of RFC 1738 (as linked to above). Look at section 3.1 for that exact scheme. This is a case where they are (soon: were) standards compliant.
I just did the math. I get paid about $126/hr to program, $53/hr for managing my staff, $11/hr for humouring my boss (see, I did mention you!), $2/hr for listening to users explain how they think a computer works, and I have to pay the company $5/hr for reading/. at work. These numbers are estimates, but the total works out to within a few pennies.
Hmmm. Maybe I should use these figures to re-prioritize my work day...
Slashdot Mirror
17.96!!!!
You rock dude. I'm a couple of bucks behind you (and happy as a clam) but I couldn't find any shares to short after they broke $17.
Were you just lucky, or just a better pouncer or something?
-- MarkusQ
Heh. 31% of the float is shorted. See here. At what point do you start worrying about short squeezes?
Worry about a short squeeze on a falling stock? Do you get your smoking supplies from Darl? A short squeeze is only an issue when the stock price shoots up, which (IMHO) SCO is very unlikely to do.
-- MarkusQ
I'd think you could get away with doing it once (as root) when you build the system, no?
-- MarkusQ
One issue I have had with KDE is that the devices (fd0, sound) are only available to the user who logs in first. I don't know if that is a KDE bug.
*smile* I almost included that in my note (it's part of my general-system-frendliness process). Provided that the system is only accessable to trusted people (people that won't pipe fart.au to the speakers when someone else is trying to work), you can just:
to give everyone access to audio in/out. I think that will do what you want.-- MarkusQ
Why not post the code here? Sounds like a nifty method.
Here it is, in bite-sized chunks. First, the command to launch X on the current tty:
startx -- :`tty | tail -c 2` vt`tty | tail -c 2`
Note the back-ticks. If you call this "win", make it executable, and put it in the happy place of your choice, you can do an number of interesting tricks with it.
- You can set the system to come up in mode 3 (see the top of
/etc/inittab) and then call it from the end of each user's .bash_profile (though depending on which terminal program they use, it may cause trouble if they try to launch an xterm, which you could guard against with a check for $TERM == "xterm" or whatever).
- Same deal but make it their default shell in
/etc/passwd
- If you don't even want to have them log in, you could do something like "su - -c win [username]" as in etc/inittab like so:
There will be a little fussing needed to get it working the way you want in your environment of course. The only two real gotcha's I've seen: 1) make sure they can't have processor intensive screen savers running, or it will be dog slow, and 2) either educate your users or remove the easy "reboot" options so they don't nuke each other (examples, gnome & KDE bye-bye dialogs, Ctrl-Alt-Del (also in intitab), etc.).1:2345:respawn:/sbin/su - -c win alice
2:2345:respawn:/sbin/su - -c win bob
3:2345:respawn:/sbin/su - -c win carol
-- MarkusQ
If you are really wanting to do a thorough job on the cheap, there are various places on the net were you can get a team of experts on it for no charge, just by posting their IP addresses, etc.
Reporting is a problem though.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Hint for the humour-challenged: this is the kind of post that comes with a "hint for the humour-challenged" attached.
It could be anything from vt1 to vt12 (Ctrl-Alt-F1 to Ctrl-Alt-F12)--higher, actually, but there aren't simple key chords for those.
And rather than having them do a (manual) startx--and presuming that the machine is in an environment where walk-up-security isn't an issue--just replace the getty-flavour-of-your-choice in /etc/intittab with a scrupt that does something along the lines of "su - -c='startx -:-...(formulas to grab this vt number in the right format)' (the user who gets this vt)".
If you're really interested, respond and I'll grab the exacts from one of the machines we have set up that way.
-- MarkusQ
If you limit them to low-impact screen savers (no realtime ray tracing or other cpu-hog bloat code) you could give them each their own session (and they could hop back & forth with Alt-F<your number here>); that way, even if one of them is in the middle of something, they could yield the system to someone else without needing to close or exit anything (although it's generally a good idea to save!).
We've used this sort of setup at work with reasonable success, though we did have to break a few MS-scarred individuals of thinking they had to reboot all the time.
-- MarkusQ
You're missing my point. I am not saying that my recolection is right or wrong, merely that it disagrees with the (present) contents of a web site. I am not claiming that my memory is the ultimate arbitor of history, nor am I willing to bestow that honour on a web site, no matter who runs it.
Look at it this way: if some web site started claiming that the week was six days long, and that there was not and had never been a day called "Tuesday," would you claim that the fact that "everybody rememberes things the way I do" meant we were "chaning history however we see fit"? Or would you doubt the accuracy of the web page?
-- MarkusQ
As I recall, Microsoft tradermarked 'Microsoft Windows' and were explicitly told that 'Windows' would not be trademarkable. Whereas Mr. Robertson sells his product as 'LindowsOS'.
I recall that as well. In fact, I even recall researching it at USPTO.GOV, and confirming it. So imagine my shock when, in a recent /. debate, I was told that this was not the case, with provided USPTO.GOV links. I searched again, and could no longer find the restriction.
Specifically, I recall that:
- Microsoft's first application for the trademark was in 1983 for some sort of audio visual software, not for MS Windows-as-we-know-it.
- That the granted trademark for the "graphical computer user interface software and related manuals" was specifically for "Microsoft Windows" and/or "MS Windows" not just Windows.
- There was a "restriction letter" of some sort that limited their mark to 1) including a logo, and 2) including their name or initials, and/or some product designation (e.g. Windows NT) for which they may have had to apply seperately.
But this isn't what the second search seemed to show.I've got no idea what happened, but I'm glad someone else remembers it the way I do.
-- MarkusQ
and argues for what he calls the 'Law of Disassembly,' that 'every MNT product must be disassemblable by at least one [of several possible methods].' The article ends with some good suggestions for raising awareness of this important issue. Gratuitous quote: This is disturbingly reminiscent of "nuclear power will give us clean limitless energy, and don't worry, we'll deal with the byproducts later because we'll have the tools by then.
This is idiotic. Any reasonable MNT device will be mostly carbon in a form very like diamond. Yes, diamond is cool; it's hard, light weight, etc. But it isn't some SciFi ubermatter. For instance, it burns pretty much the same way coal and graphite do.
As for the products of MNT, it depends a heck of a lot on what is beeing made. Is he seriously suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to use MNT to produce clean drinking water for third world countries unless we have a way to disassemble it? Or he just techo-fearmongering without bothering to be serious?
I will agree though, it is disturbingly reminiscent of the FUD that was spread about nuclear power by the fossil fuel industry that has done so much for the environment (not to mention world peace).
-- MarkusQ
Forget the map. What you need to do is find a way to get an analog signal strength reading (either with a device designed for the job, or hacking something on a laptop to (say) pipe a running digital signal strength value out the dsp to the earphone jack) and run it into an op-amp setup that will 1) give you decent current and 2) give you an inverted signal as well. Run these two signals to two actuators. Hook the inverted one to a can of red spray paint,and the un-inverted one to a can of blue spray pant.
Do this with the power off.
Go outside, make sure the cans are facing away from you, power up, and walk around.
From then on, the parts of campus with a blue tinge will be the ones with good signal, and the red areas will be the ones to avoid. Easy rule to learn, and no maps to deal with.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. You may need to go over some parts of campus (esp. plants, artwork, etc. that may be strongly coloured) with a coat of gray primer first. I suggest you just play around with it till you get something usable.
I don't need people in lab coats to do a double blind experiment.
The lab coats aren't important, but the other people are. What you described is not a "double blind" test in any meaningful sense of the word. For that you'd need:
- A statistically significant number of people to test on
- Someone to prepare the test materials in such a way that the only difference is what is being tested such that
- one set has the substance being tested
- the other set does not
...but there is no way to tell which is which.
- some way to provide the materials to the testers and receive their reports such that no information about the identity of the sets could be transmitted.
The situation you described has none of these properties. For example, it sounds as if you only look for the cause of the migranes when you actually have them. Thus you might consume aspertame many times with no ill effects and never realize it. Or there might be some unsuspected problem with some preservative that is often (but not only) used in products containing aspertame. Or...but you get the idea.The sort of report you give provides sufficent reason to investigate with a double blind study, but is not in and of iteslf a double blind study, no mater how often it happens.
-- MarkusQ
The whole anti-aspartame case is based on an urban legend, which started, IIRC, with some "research" published to promote a stock fraud scheme by a "food science" professor at ASU (Arizona State University). Dispite the chemical implausibility of the reactions he proposed (unfavorable reaction paths that require odd conditions + heat to occur even in theory, no repeatable demonstration of them under any condition) has taken on a life of its own. Many people (on both sides) have a vested interest in "winning." The actual data (as opposed to anecdotal reports / internet rumours) to date strongly support the aspertame-is-safe view.
I do not wish to belittle your migranes (they are not pleasent, I know) but simply to point out that it is exceedingly unlikely that aspertame per se is the cause, or if it is the mechanism is not what is popularly claimed. If you are willing to make temporary sacrafice to help resolve the matter, you may want to see if there are any double blind studies being conducted on aspertame in which you could participate. The usual setup is that people who suspect they are sensitive to it are given (on two different days) a sealed pill that either contains aspertame or some inert substance. Neither they nor the person giving them the pills knows on which day they get which. The last I heard (late 1990's) they were still trying to find some greater-than-chance corelation.
If nothing else, it may help you learn more about what you need to avoid.
-- MarkusQ
Some believe that the function of government is to arm itself to the teeth to protect the life and property of its citizens, not to give health care and schooling and nannying its citizens.
I would buy the protecting part (and am certainly no fan of nannying) though I'm not so sure about the arming-to-the-teeth bit. Especially when many of the people we arm/train/support (bin Laden springs to mind) later turn out to be great threats to our security. Why do we have to sell/give weapons to so many foreign governments?
And why are we ignoring the North Koreans, who do have weapons that could hurt us, and focusing on poor countries in the Middle East that can't? And don't drag in the WTC/Pentagon attacks--that was planned, financed, and executed by Saudis (our "friends"), not Iraqis.
There are many good, sound reasons for going to space; "arming-to-the-teeth" is not, IMHO, one of them.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. As for the rest, if the current news isn't enough, I'm willing to wait and let history convince you.
Hindsight says was were wrong about the state of the Iraqi weapons programs, not that we were lied to.
Nothing in the information available to GWB said that there were stockpiles of WMD, yet he repeatedly said that we had proof that there were massive stockpiles and that we knew where they were. That's what's called a lie.
That would be like me saying its going to be sunny tommorrow, when infact it might be rainy.
No, that would be like you saying that you had proof that it was going to rain when in fact all you had was a forecast that said it probably wouldn't rain much.
So, is 300,000 dead Iraqis a matter of concern to you? Is 500+ US lives worth 300,000 Iraqi graves? Saddam had more of a body count that we could even try for short of intentionally targetting civilians. Lets do some simple math now.
And it's presently so safe and peaceful there that no Iraqis are dieing?
US did nothing for 10 years: 300,000 known deaths US invades: ~500 US deaths after 1 year
No invasion: 30,000 deaths a year on average Invasion: less than 30,000 average (I do not know the numbers for non-US folks, but I am sure that the number comes in less than 30,000).
The very nature of your statistics disturbs me. How is it we all know so much about the Iraqi deaths in the years durring which we weren't present (and had demonstratbly bad intelligence) but have only guesses about how many have died while we were there and watching? Dosn't that seem even a little bit odd to you?
Who values lives again?
Presumably, we all do. The issue is, would we rather devote them to going into space or killing each other.
Now, Bush happens to also present some ideas for getting us into space and also a permanent settlement on the moon and beyond on mars. How do you feel about that? Should we not actually try this, or should we only work on satalite tellescopes? Or because Bush presented the idea should we scrap it?
By all means, we should do it. Too bad we're broke now, having spent more than we have on that whole arming-to-the-teeth thing.
-- MarkusQ
The reason only 500+ US soldiers have died is because we value life so highly. We spend billions to keep our troops armed to the teeth with the best weapons and machinery possible.
Yes, and the reason the number was as high as it was is that we were lied to. So?
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
The point of the poster you replied to was that (and I sense you agree) some things are worth risking your life for. All you seem to differ on is what those things are. I personally would rather risk my life to get mankind into space than I would risk it to get GWB a second term.
But that's just me.
-- MarkusQ
No, no, no, to the law only matters whose communication it is.
Fine, but that doesn't change my point.
So, my mailbox in the company account is mine. It's my communication.
It might be, but it might be someone you have never met trying to contact the company to get a problem resolved, order something, etc.
My point is and was that you can't reasonably assume that all mail that comes to someone's e-mail account at work is an attempt to communicate with them and not an attempt to communicate with the company. If bdp@cryptic.com is answered by a guy named Bruce for a while and then subsequently given to someone named Betty, it might be a case where she's getting his personal communications (e.g. he's Bruce Donald Parsly and she's Betty Due Purdy), or it might be the company's (e.g., they both handle support for the company's Best Darned Product (tm) and he's just been promoted to janitor, leaving her stuck withall the support mail).
The point? You can't tell for sure without more information.
-- MarkusQ
NOT here in Brasil. E-mail is by law on par with telephonical communications, so tapping without judicial warrant is a crime. Total privacy is expected.
You, but no matter where you are a lot hinges on whose account it was--the company's or the employee's. Sometimes, it's obvious (bob.smith.personal@company.com or customer.service@company.com) but most of the time it's not. Many small companies have customers direct mail to an individual ("just send me your shipping info and I'll get that right out to you; my e-mail is bob@company.com") and personal mail occasionaly gets sent to company accounts.
I'd say the correct answer is to let them have what they requested in good faith. In any case, if you don't trust them, you shouldn't be hosting them.
-- MarkusQ
That's for HTTP (where it isn't meaningful anyway) not HTTPS (where it is). The point though is that simply permitting the schema doesn't mean the browser isn't standards compliant, since in some cases it should be allowed. The real issue is, are there bugs in the handling that can be exploited, to which the answer clearly is "yes".
-- MarkusQ
Sadly, though, it shows the reputation that Linux zealots have made for themselves, not that it is any justification for this.
Made for themselves?
This is a classic case of blame-the-victim. Someone gets maligned in the press, slandered by corporate greed machines, and somehow this is because of "the reputation [they] made for themselves?"
I supose your next line will be that they were "just asking for it" because of the way they were dressed.
-- MarkusQ
The problem is that IE is *not* standards compliant because it allows URLs with the user:passwd@host scheme.
No, that's part of RFC 1738 (as linked to above). Look at section 3.1 for that exact scheme. This is a case where they are (soon: were) standards compliant.
-- MarkusQ
I just did the math. I get paid about $126/hr to program, $53/hr for managing my staff, $11/hr for humouring my boss (see, I did mention you!), $2/hr for listening to users explain how they think a computer works, and I have to pay the company $5/hr for reading
Hmmm. Maybe I should use these figures to re-prioritize my work day...
Naaaa...
-- MarkusQ (chaneling Wally)
How the fuck can you be 'complicit' in a suicide in the first place?
Easy. You print lies about someone in such a way that they feel their life is no longer worth living.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. This has been known to drive some poor souls into hiding in the woods and stabbing themselves repeatedly in the chest, etc.
Exactly HOW did the author come to this idea?
Hmmm. Let's try it in a different context:
"If the clone warriors prevail against the Jedi, besides them reaping their pay, the mastermind behind their creation stands to become the emperor."
The logic looks sound to me.
-- MarkusQ