Are there currently any legal restraints on how CCIPS goes about doing it's job that the DOJ/CCIPS is attempting to strike down? If so, which are these?
Good article, though I haven't had time to properly digest it all yet (working). I'm not sure I agree with the person who posted the blurb about unnecessary spite. I think all of it is fairly well deserved and was done with a hefty dose of humor.
You would think that more people would stand up to protect their legal rights from being trampled, but alas, we live in a world of really really dumb sheep.
Not to rain on the parade here but I read that as "9% of current-or-soon-to-be users of Linux are changing their plans about Linux because of SCO. That translates to many, many thousands. That isn't good at all.
That links appears to be inaccurate, or at least not the only way to go about doing it.
o I do it on the second board (never realized you could do it on the first).
o There is no need to wait for five passes. Often a pass will go by without firing any shots ONCE. If a second time occurs then it is safe to shoot the last bug.
o There is no need to keep both bugs alive, it is only necessary that the bug you leave alive is one of the two mentioned. It's much easier to dodge one firing than two, mostly because it's a tedious 3-15 minutes of waiting for it to stop firing and there is plenty of temptation to do something else while waiting.
I realize you didn't write the thing, just sayin'...
And use the karma bonus. It's just a damned number.
I want to know why this comes as a surprise to anyone. A very small and/or light thing moving at a very, very fast speed can cause considerable damage. *slaps forehead.
How do you get into NASA without passing highschool physics? If I asked these people -- the ones who declared that such an impact was not cause for concern -- what was heavier; a pound of feathers or a pound of lead, what would be their answer?
First a metric conversion issue that dooms a Mars mission now this.... Maybe highschool physics actually isn't required...
I'm not exactly a console junkie but you're the first person I've ever met/heard from who knew about that bug. I've taught dozens of people and have yet to meet a single person who knew about it.
I assume we're talking about the "don't shoot certain character until he makes two passes without firing on second board that leaves the rest of the game not shooting" bug?
Spyware Search & Destroy is one of the most impressive programs, ever, for targeting and eliminating this crap. I have noticed, however, that things like Kazaa will stop working with the latest releases if you do this.
The article says he has a patent pending. What? Is "a method by which to make duct tape available on a smaller roll to facilitate easier carrying" now innovative and non-obvious?
I wrote this to someone else, so I'll just cut and paste...
"Sure. Ummm. I'm going in for surgery today so it'll have to wait until tomorrow, but drop me an email at slash@php.us and I'll get you a URL where you can just dl it. If you have dialup or some such, let me know and I'll snailmail you a CD with the data."
Sure. Ummm. I'm going in for surgery today so it'll have to wait until tomorrow, but drop me an email at slash@php.us and I'll get you a URL where you can just dl it. If you have dialup or some such, let me know and I'll snailmail you a CD with the data.
stanwirth writes: "...and Akamai's entire business model is based on illegal content-smuggling. I really don't think so!"
Akamai caches sites of people who pay them to cache them, so that would be one hell of a lawsuit. I know this because I worked for them for a few years.
On the day of 9/11, I began to think that maybe a lot of things would be online that would disappear on the next update, forever. We tend to think of 1880 newspaper clippings as being perishable, not online media, but the opposite is true. So all day on 9/11 I archived news sites and about two hundred blogs using "wget -p".
Over the next week I archived some 4,600 blogs. They've kind of been sitting around waiting for me to weed through and organize. I've also been wgetting 30 or so large news sites' front page every 15 minutes or so on the hunch that I'll grab something emerging even if I'm AFK. Well...what can I do with this data?
The answer(s) to this question will definitely be of use to me. Thanks for asking it. Slash, thanks for posting it.
From the blurb: "The sound in games like Quake is pretty good, but what if it was rendered with enough precision to let blind people grok the scene? The echoes from the tapping of a white cane already carry plenty of information to the blind. What if they could compete on an equal footing with the sighted? Who would win?"
I'm a huge admirer or RMS and have been for years. I'm an OS zealot/bigot and I don't mind saying as much. I've been largely avoiding the SCO issue because it seemed like so much hot air and when I saw this article, being from RMS, I decided to read it. Useless. I known not one iota more about what is going on.
From the article: "The case was lost in court and now it's time to get on with providing customers with what we believe they want." - Dennis Strigl, the president and chief executive of Verizon Wireless
It's nice to see Verizon openly admit that thier first priority is themselves, not their customers.
Normally I ignore AC posts that I would normally reply to because the odds are good they're not going to read my reply, so why bother?
On the other hand, there is too much crap in here to simply ignore. So I'm speaking to whoever stumbles upon it, not the poster.
The AC (aren't they all?) writes: ""Anyone who does it" is just going to try and rationalize their use of it, just like you are. Of course you want to believe it's not harmful, since you do it yourself."
...yet nowhere in this thread have I said anything about taking MDMA. In another thread, however, I did say as much: "I have not touched drugs in well over a year and entirely without any sort of intervention. Yet I can say that my experience with them have been extraordinarily positive." So the ACs assertion that I "use them" is merely him or her trying to line up an ad hominem attack. "You're interested in thing A therefore you're obviously biased."
"MDMA _causes_ its effects by triggering a massive serotonin release in the brain. This release damages the axon terminals."
Pure speculation. Experiments on animals have involved doses in the range of 25-40mg per kg of bodyweight. For a 200lb male, that's about 2,250-3,640mg of MDMA. Since each dose of MDMA is roughly 75-125mg (I'll call it 100mg), that would mean you'd have to give that male roughly 22 to 36 pills to manage the same effect. I have to wonder what 30 50mg of diphenhydramine (sleep aid) would do to a person. Just a guess, I'd say it would depress their nervous system enough to cause their heart to stop.
The poster needs to stop with these scare tactics. Because I will call them on it.
"Psychoactive drugs _work_ by posioning your body. The effects that you feel are your body trying to combat the poision that you introduced."
This contradicts his earlier, correct information. MDMA works by flooding the synapse with seratonin (as well as dopamine and others). Seratonin is a mood regulating drug. So the "high" is not achieved through a poisonous effect. It is caused by turning up a process that occurs already.
"But don't go telling everyone else that it's harmless fun."
Now the AC engages in a "strawman attack." At no point did I say MDMA was harmless. MDMA, IMO, should be approached with a great deal of caution. I believe it can cause harm just like any other chemical that isn't given it's proper respect. I strongly recommend against using halucinogens by anyone who feels they are not extraordinarily stable, psychologically.
That's it. I think this reply puts everything back in perspective.
An AC writes: "On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn't see that were causing these visible diseases?
They were hung as witches and described as heretics by religious institutions. You get no reprive.
"We have not discovered everything. All that we will ever learn about invisible realities tomorrow and yesterday does not all exist today in our current understanding."
Sorry, doesn't fly even for a second. Science is repeatable. If you have repeatable experiments which can show God to be truthful, such that the experiment is repeatable by anyone with the same conclusion stemming, bring it.
Your argument is basically "Insightful minds were once though crazy and eventually proven correct. Since we too are thought to be crazy we must therefore be insightful and destined for vindication as well."
Yes, Tesla was once considered a joke. So was Bozo the Clown.
TheLink writes: "Plenty of hostility around towards people who believe in God. There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here. And why is that?"
Because people who overclock their CPUs do not, generally, demand that I do too.
fferrers writes: "Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do."
fferrers then writes in the next sentence: "They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize."
So you generalized all of society without knowing all of society, generalized me without knowing anything at all about what I do, then claimed that I cannot generalize.
handsolo writes: "It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned."
I agree. I actually agree that ecstacy is much more harmful to the body than alcohol. But alcohol use is an epidemic, not ecstacy use.
My post was not intended to convey some level of safety but merely that our concern is being misdirected. Some might even say "intentionally." Is anyone seriously suggesting we do to alcohol what we've done to ecstacy? Well, why not?
An AC writes: "Hedonism extends far beyond just the sexual stuff--there's people out there that think our whole existence should be transformed to a blissful, engineering (not necessarily drug-)induced utopia, completely without pain."
I'm Buddhist. It is sort of a central tenant of ours that this isn't possible.
"Anyways, that's one reason there's a kneejerk reaction against recreational drugs. There are other extremely valid reasons--crime and other behavioral penalties."
I have not touched drugs in well over a year and entirely without any sort of intervention. Yet I can say that my experience with them have been extraordinarily positive. One event being easily within the top five best things that have ever occurred to me.
I'm not suggesting that drugs are good, period, or that everyone should try them. What I am suggesting is that this blanket notion that drugs == bad is seriously flawed. Again, back to the Buddhist thing about rulesets. I'm rambling.
"But here's the kicker. All those doctors, and smart people who tell you not to do drugs are not just lookin out for themselves. Drugs like MDMA are incredibly destructive on the nervous system. They really cause havoc on the system of neurotransmitters and neurons that are the only source of consciousness you'll ever have (in this life). Why would you want to take the risk to ruin those?"
First, the only experiment done to show damage involved huge, huge amounts of the drug given to primates. As I wrote in another post, you can die from too much vitamin E if you want to.
As far as the risk goes, that's a good point. It is a risk. It is one I approached with a lot of research, weighted the potential risk vs. the potential gain, made my decision, took care as best I could and emerged the better for it. That is my "why."
"While alcohol has risks, drugs are alot more dangerous. We need to cure the symptoms, sure, but there's a problem behind that which we'll unfortunately never cure."
I've known people whose lives have been destroyed by alcohol. I've known people to be killed while driving using it and being hit by those using it. And yet I've never known this to happen to or from anyone using MDMA. I'm not presenting myself as a scientifically valid control group. I do disagree with the assessment of alcohol being far less dangerous.
You shouldn't have posted AC. That was a good rant.
Martin Blank writes: "Point me to the research showing that people who experience declining positive effects from a given dose give it up rather than taking more of the drug to get the desired effect and I'll believe you."
Taking more ecstacy does not increase the effect. Ask anyone who does it.
And if you want citations, look them up yourself. I'm not presenting a white paper here, I'm presenting discussion. If a lack of a citation causes you to not believe me, so be it. I'll live.
If you are sufficiently convinced that I am wrong, you'll have to deal with the result of being either right or wrong, not me. If it is an important issue to you, you'll look it up. If not, you won't. So if it is, you'll do it on your own and if it isn't, why would I bother?
Slashdot Mirror
And does crying "shutdown -h now" too? How about a cough doing a fsck?
Are there currently any legal restraints on how CCIPS goes about doing it's job that the DOJ/CCIPS is attempting to strike down? If so, which are these?
Good article, though I haven't had time to properly digest it all yet (working). I'm not sure I agree with the person who posted the blurb about unnecessary spite. I think all of it is fairly well deserved and was done with a hefty dose of humor.
Fsck 'em.
Lifted directly from the article:
You would think that more people would stand up to protect their legal rights from being trampled, but alas, we live in a world of really really dumb sheep.
Their link, not mine.
Love it.
Not to rain on the parade here but I read that as "9% of current-or-soon-to-be users of Linux are changing their plans about Linux because of SCO. That translates to many, many thousands. That isn't good at all.
That links appears to be inaccurate, or at least not the only way to go about doing it.
o I do it on the second board (never realized you could do it on the first).
o There is no need to wait for five passes. Often a pass will go by without firing any shots ONCE. If a second time occurs then it is safe to shoot the last bug.
o There is no need to keep both bugs alive, it is only necessary that the bug you leave alive is one of the two mentioned. It's much easier to dodge one firing than two, mostly because it's a tedious 3-15 minutes of waiting for it to stop firing and there is plenty of temptation to do something else while waiting.
I realize you didn't write the thing, just sayin'...
And use the karma bonus. It's just a damned number.
I want to know why this comes as a surprise to anyone. A very small and/or light thing moving at a very, very fast speed can cause considerable damage. *slaps forehead.
... Maybe highschool physics actually isn't required...
How do you get into NASA without passing highschool physics? If I asked these people -- the ones who declared that such an impact was not cause for concern -- what was heavier; a pound of feathers or a pound of lead, what would be their answer?
First a metric conversion issue that dooms a Mars mission now this.
I'm not exactly a console junkie but you're the first person I've ever met/heard from who knew about that bug. I've taught dozens of people and have yet to meet a single person who knew about it.
I assume we're talking about the "don't shoot certain character until he makes two passes without firing on second board that leaves the rest of the game not shooting" bug?
Spyware Search & Destroy is one of the most impressive programs, ever, for targeting and eliminating this crap. I have noticed, however, that things like Kazaa will stop working with the latest releases if you do this.
The article says he has a patent pending. What? Is "a method by which to make duct tape available on a smaller roll to facilitate easier carrying" now innovative and non-obvious?
*sigh
I wrote this to someone else, so I'll just cut and paste...
"Sure. Ummm. I'm going in for surgery today so it'll have to wait until tomorrow, but drop me an email at slash@php.us and I'll get you a URL where you can just dl it. If you have dialup or some such, let me know and I'll snailmail you a CD with the data."
Sure. Ummm. I'm going in for surgery today so it'll have to wait until tomorrow, but drop me an email at slash@php.us and I'll get you a URL where you can just dl it. If you have dialup or some such, let me know and I'll snailmail you a CD with the data.
You mean you want the archives?
stanwirth writes:
"...and Akamai's entire business model is based on illegal content-smuggling. I really don't think so!"
Akamai caches sites of people who pay them to cache them, so that would be one hell of a lawsuit. I know this because I worked for them for a few years.
On the day of 9/11, I began to think that maybe a lot of things would be online that would disappear on the next update, forever. We tend to think of 1880 newspaper clippings as being perishable, not online media, but the opposite is true. So all day on 9/11 I archived news sites and about two hundred blogs using "wget -p".
...what can I do with this data?
Over the next week I archived some 4,600 blogs. They've kind of been sitting around waiting for me to weed through and organize. I've also been wgetting 30 or so large news sites' front page every 15 minutes or so on the hunch that I'll grab something emerging even if I'm AFK. Well
The answer(s) to this question will definitely be of use to me. Thanks for asking it. Slash, thanks for posting it.
From the blurb:
"The sound in games like Quake is pretty good, but what if it was rendered with enough precision to let blind people grok the scene? The echoes from the tapping of a white cane already carry plenty of information to the blind. What if they could compete on an equal footing with the sighted? Who would win?"
My money is on the guy with the stick.
I'm a huge admirer or RMS and have been for years. I'm an OS zealot/bigot and I don't mind saying as much. I've been largely avoiding the SCO issue because it seemed like so much hot air and when I saw this article, being from RMS, I decided to read it. Useless. I known not one iota more about what is going on.
From the article:
"The case was lost in court and now it's time to get on with providing customers with what we believe they want." - Dennis Strigl, the president and chief executive of Verizon Wireless
It's nice to see Verizon openly admit that thier first priority is themselves, not their customers.
On the other hand, there is too much crap in here to simply ignore. So I'm speaking to whoever stumbles upon it, not the poster.
The AC (aren't they all?) writes:
""Anyone who does it" is just going to try and rationalize their use of it, just like you are. Of course you want to believe it's not harmful, since you do it yourself."
"MDMA _causes_ its effects by triggering a massive serotonin release in the brain. This release damages the axon terminals."
Pure speculation. Experiments on animals have involved doses in the range of 25-40mg per kg of bodyweight. For a 200lb male, that's about 2,250-3,640mg of MDMA. Since each dose of MDMA is roughly 75-125mg (I'll call it 100mg), that would mean you'd have to give that male roughly 22 to 36 pills to manage the same effect. I have to wonder what 30 50mg of diphenhydramine (sleep aid) would do to a person. Just a guess, I'd say it would depress their nervous system enough to cause their heart to stop.
The poster needs to stop with these scare tactics. Because I will call them on it.
"Psychoactive drugs _work_ by posioning your body. The effects that you feel are your body trying to combat the poision that you introduced."
This contradicts his earlier, correct information. MDMA works by flooding the synapse with seratonin (as well as dopamine and others). Seratonin is a mood regulating drug. So the "high" is not achieved through a poisonous effect. It is caused by turning up a process that occurs already.
"But don't go telling everyone else that it's harmless fun."
Now the AC engages in a "strawman attack." At no point did I say MDMA was harmless. MDMA, IMO, should be approached with a great deal of caution. I believe it can cause harm just like any other chemical that isn't given it's proper respect. I strongly recommend against using halucinogens by anyone who feels they are not extraordinarily stable, psychologically.
That's it. I think this reply puts everything back in perspective.
An AC writes:
"On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn't see that were causing these visible diseases?
They were hung as witches and described as heretics by religious institutions. You get no reprive.
"We have not discovered everything. All that we will ever learn about invisible realities tomorrow and yesterday does not all exist today in our current understanding."
Sorry, doesn't fly even for a second. Science is repeatable. If you have repeatable experiments which can show God to be truthful, such that the experiment is repeatable by anyone with the same conclusion stemming, bring it.
Your argument is basically "Insightful minds were once though crazy and eventually proven correct. Since we too are thought to be crazy we must therefore be insightful and destined for vindication as well."
Yes, Tesla was once considered a joke. So was Bozo the Clown.
TheLink writes:
"Plenty of hostility around towards people who believe in God. There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here. And why is that?"
Because people who overclock their CPUs do not, generally, demand that I do too.
fferrers writes:
...wonderful. =)
"Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do."
fferrers then writes in the next sentence:
"They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize."
So you generalized all of society without knowing all of society, generalized me without knowing anything at all about what I do, then claimed that I cannot generalize.
That is just
handsolo writes:
"It's easy to forget that far more people were behind motorboats and drinking alcohol than were taking ecstasy. Statistics like these are mentioned frequently but generally the proportion of those who partake in the activity over those who die from the activity isn't mentioned."
I agree. I actually agree that ecstacy is much more harmful to the body than alcohol. But alcohol use is an epidemic, not ecstacy use.
My post was not intended to convey some level of safety but merely that our concern is being misdirected. Some might even say "intentionally." Is anyone seriously suggesting we do to alcohol what we've done to ecstacy? Well, why not?
An AC writes:
"Hedonism extends far beyond just the sexual stuff--there's people out there that think our whole existence should be transformed to a blissful, engineering (not necessarily drug-)induced utopia, completely without pain."
I'm Buddhist. It is sort of a central tenant of ours that this isn't possible.
"Anyways, that's one reason there's a kneejerk reaction against recreational drugs. There are other extremely valid reasons--crime and other behavioral penalties."
I have not touched drugs in well over a year and entirely without any sort of intervention. Yet I can say that my experience with them have been extraordinarily positive. One event being easily within the top five best things that have ever occurred to me.
I'm not suggesting that drugs are good, period, or that everyone should try them. What I am suggesting is that this blanket notion that drugs == bad is seriously flawed. Again, back to the Buddhist thing about rulesets. I'm rambling.
"But here's the kicker. All those doctors, and smart people who tell you not to do drugs are not just lookin out for themselves. Drugs like MDMA are incredibly destructive on the nervous system. They really cause havoc on the system of neurotransmitters and neurons that are the only source of consciousness you'll ever have (in this life). Why would you want to take the risk to ruin those?"
First, the only experiment done to show damage involved huge, huge amounts of the drug given to primates. As I wrote in another post, you can die from too much vitamin E if you want to.
As far as the risk goes, that's a good point. It is a risk. It is one I approached with a lot of research, weighted the potential risk vs. the potential gain, made my decision, took care as best I could and emerged the better for it. That is my "why."
"While alcohol has risks, drugs are alot more dangerous. We need to cure the symptoms, sure, but there's a problem behind that which we'll unfortunately never cure."
I've known people whose lives have been destroyed by alcohol. I've known people to be killed while driving using it and being hit by those using it. And yet I've never known this to happen to or from anyone using MDMA. I'm not presenting myself as a scientifically valid control group. I do disagree with the assessment of alcohol being far less dangerous.
You shouldn't have posted AC. That was a good rant.
Martin Blank writes:
"Point me to the research showing that people who experience declining positive effects from a given dose give it up rather than taking more of the drug to get the desired effect and I'll believe you."
Taking more ecstacy does not increase the effect. Ask anyone who does it.
And if you want citations, look them up yourself. I'm not presenting a white paper here, I'm presenting discussion. If a lack of a citation causes you to not believe me, so be it. I'll live.
If you are sufficiently convinced that I am wrong, you'll have to deal with the result of being either right or wrong, not me. If it is an important issue to you, you'll look it up. If not, you won't. So if it is, you'll do it on your own and if it isn't, why would I bother?