That is true parents are unable to be with their children 24/7. However, the time that they are with their children, they need to instill values and teach the difference between right and wrong.
Sure, there are some children that you will never be able to teach the difference between right and wrong. Typically, those children have severe mental disorders. Which, if I am remembering correctly, describes the two kids from Columbine. I believe that one or both were on psycotropic medication.
While the next few words that I write will be terrible and it was a terrible time in our country for people with mental disorders, it did happen.
30 years ago, children with mental disorders were not allowed in normal schools and many were not put into society. They were confined to state run mental institutions. While the conditions were terrible in most of those places and they cost a whole helluva lot of money to maintain, those children and adults were kept out of society and were kept in a manner that protected both themselves and society as a whole.
Durring the past 30 years, those hospitals have begun to be shutdown by "well-meaning" government officials and people that simply want to save the taxpayers money. Since that time, those children and adults that were dangerous to society have been thrust into a society that is unable to cope with them. These people are put on heavy mind-altering psycotropic medication that they would rather not take, because they don't feel normal and functional when on that medication.
The majority of those people are not dangerous and would not, even if they were off of their medication. I have a very close friend that is one of the non-dangerous types. It is scary when he is off of his medication, but he poses only a danger to himself.
Unfortunately, the dangerous, murderous types are also walking about in society. Free to stop taking their medication at any time. They could be your next-door neighbor. The scary bum walking down the street. These people were once kept from society, as terrible as the conditions were society had fewer of these issues.
You and I know the difference between right and wrong. People that suffer from severe mental disorders do not and nothing will stop them from doing what they will do.
The following link is to a site that has some additional information regarding all of the children that have committed those terrible acts of violence in schools. Please not that most of them were some form of mind-altering medications prescribed by psychiartrists.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/schvio l. html
Attempting to hide violence from children is never going to save society. Violence has existed within society for thousands of years and will continue to exist for longer than that.
That is true parents are unable to be with their children 24/7. However, the time that they are with their children, they need to instill values and teach the difference between right and wrong.
Sure, there are some children that you will never be able to teach the difference between right and wrong. Typically, those children have severe mental disorders. Which, if I am remembering correctly, describes the two kids from Columbine. I believe that one or both were on psycotropic medication.
While the next few words that I write will be terrible and it was a terrible time in our country for people with mental disorders, it did happen.
30 years ago, children with mental disorders were not allowed in normal schools and many were not put into society. They were confined to state run mental institutions. While the conditions were terrible in most of those places and they cost a whole helluva lot of money to maintain, those children and adults were kept out of society and were kept in a manner that protected both themselves and society as a whole.
Durring the past 30 years, those hospitals have begun to be shutdown by "well-meaning" government officials and people that simply want to save the taxpayers money. Since that time, those children and adults that were dangerous to society have been thrust into a society that is unable to cope with them. These people are put on heavy mind-altering psycotropic medication that they would rather not take, because they don't feel normal and functional when on that medication.
The majority of those people are not dangerous and would not, even if they were off of their medication. I have a very close friend that is one of the non-dangerous types. It is scary when he is off of his medication, but he poses only a danger to himself.
Unfortunately, the dangerous, murderous types are also walking about in society. Free to stop taking their medication at any time. They could be your next-door neighbor. The scary bum walking down the street. These people were once kept from society, as terrible as the conditions were society had fewer of these issues.
You and I know the difference between right and wrong. People that suffer from severe mental disorders do not and nothing will stop them from doing what they will do.
The following link is to a site that has some additional information regarding all of the children that have committed those terrible acts of violence in schools. Please not that most of them were some form of mind-altering medications prescribed by psychiartrists.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/schvio l. html
Attempting to hide violence from children is never going to save society. Violence has existed within society for thousands of years and will continue to exist for longer than that.
About a new possible Bill in the State of Michigan regarding the sale and rental of video games that have violent content in them.
I am going to find out who this idiot is and ask him why he believes that parents are incapable of raising their children.
I was also going to point out that a law similiar to this was passed and then reveresed in court, in the city of Indianapolis recently.
Parents do not need additional laws that give them even more reason to shirk their duties in raising their children. If they do, then they really shouldn't be parents. Work a few less hours and frikkin' raise your children. I know that when I have children, I or my wife, whomever is making less, will stay home and raise the children.
Again, those children in Columbine, including most of the "Copy-cat" children, were all on some kind of psycotropic medication, had two parents that worked more hours than they spent with their kids and probably barely knew what their kids were doing, thinking or planning.
That never happened to me, because my parents were there. Sure, sometimes they seemed annoying, but for the most part, they spent time with me and my siblings. They took us places, explained the actual difference between right and wrong and helped us become the good citizens that we are today.
Today's children don't have parents, they have lax animal trainers that are barely there to feed and change, let alone train the children they bore. Get a grip people, stop supporting these silly laws and start supporting your children.
Another thing, your children are growing up. If you don't teach them about the REAL WORLD, then they are going to learn all the dangers on their own. If that means they get pregnant at 15, then that is really your fault for choosing not to talk to them about sex. If they end up whacked out on drugs, again, you should have talked to them about drugs.
My parents did that for me and yours may have done that for you. If you turned out okay and actually had parents there to raise you. What makes you think that your children will be okay without parents?
There is a problem with a program that has little to do with me. However, they are looking for a scapegoat and the general concensus that if it hits my area, then I am the sacrificial lamb.
The thing that sucks is that I am the most technically proficient and the best with dealing with the modern technical issues in my area.
I suppose this gives me reason to move on to bigger and better things now.
From reading the basic decription of the product. I have summized that not only does it violate the DCMA, it may also violate standard copyright law.
I also must agree with several posters that state the same thing regarding the designed use of CD-R/RW drives and the latest DVD Burners. Of course, this may also be loosely applied to floppy disk drives. All of the devices mentioned in this paragraph resemble the intended function of the device from this article.
In most cases, everyone is stating how patently absurd this DMCA law is. However, it is law. Laws exist until they are challenged, in court and found to be incapable of being upheld in a court of law.
So, what I propse is a simple use of the DMCA, to utterly cause its own destruction. This is basically what needs to be done.
Any programmer out there, music band or other group please read and consider this statement.
Create a program or application and provide this upon CD or DVD. Make sure that this is a professionally generated CD. This can be expensive, but can be worth it.
Once you have this application CD out there. Simply open up a case against the manufacturers of all CD-RW and DVD Burners in the US. Make the claim that they are violating the DMCA since your application, which was meant to only be distributed on your CDs, can now be digitally copied. Make certain that this claim can be backed up as violating the encryption or other form of protection that you have used with your application.
Send forth a letter to each of those companies, demanding that they cease and desist with the design and manufacture of said devices and to ship all of those devices to you, for proper destruction.
Either one of two things will happen. It will be upheld in a court of law and most of us will now be outlaws with our "illegal" CD duplication devices, or those same companies will push the case to the Supreme Court which will simply toss out the DMCA.
Any takers? I would do it. However, I can barely code myself out of a box, or into one, for that matter.
Of course, it might not be that simple. Please feel free to add to this statement. This might be the only way to get rid of such a patently insipid law.
They do the same thing with Windows. Of course, they are unable to help it if a machine gets hosed by adding and removing a few applications.
Whenever they release a new piece of hardware, whether it is the latest and greatest CPU or some other whiz-bang technology this is what they do. Of course, when it comes to launching a new CPU design, they get ahold of reference designs and final run chips several months before they are even announced to the public, as existing, by Intel or AMD.
For instance HP and many of the other major OEMs may already have 2.5 or faster CPUs from Intel in either reference, or final run chips. They have to test those, otherwise they will end up with all sorts of headaches as they rush poorly tested product out to the field.
It is the same way with the smaller OEMs, the only major difference is there is little advance handling of CPUs that are getting ready to hit the market.
The reason that they are shipping a year old system is that that is what they tested with. They confirmed that their hardware will all function fine under that version of Linux. They must have fully tested and configured all aspects of the machine to be confident that what they are selling will work with the minimal amount of fuss.
Since they may have spent six months or more testing, tweaking and then retesting, that is what they will ship. The testing cycle of any new product takes time and care. Simply slapping it together and seeing that is "mostly" works is just not good enough to put your name on something.
HP is probably beginning to test or are nearing completion of testing Red Hat 7.2 on their systems. In another 6 months or so, they will probably have those systems ready to ship.
That is the way that business operates. You will understand when, or if, you get into a position with a company that is looking at updating systems. Knowing that something "works" is not the same as knowing that it works by testing the heck out of it.
The states could also happen up on a few lines from actual GPL'd code. Some of those comments about the GPL could still be in some of those.h and.c files.
At least that is my theory about why MS has been so darn (afraid?) of GPL software and its license. I figure that they must have a handful of GPL code pieces in their Windows product.
The Law of Gravity is easily defensible. If you drop a rock, it will fall. That can be endless proven, which makes it easily defensible.
The great flood that the Bible speaks of could very easily be the creation of, I believe either the Red or Black Seas. There is great evidence that one of those two seas were very quickly created incredibly quickly by either an earthquake or something causing a mountainous area to rupture allowing seawater to rush into a low-lying lake area.
However, the Great Flood does little to explain the existense of practically any of the creatures living in Australia or the Galapagos Islands. It doesn't explain why there are some many variations in Human beings. It also doesn't explain why the Chinese have written word that dates back much farther, by several thousand years, than the Bible. Which, if I am not mistaken would be when the Great Flood occurred.
Explain to me what the Bible says about those things.
A theory is an idea or belief that has been concocted by a scientist to explain a portion of the universe. Until this theory can be wholly proven or wholly disproved the scientist and others that believe in that matter have faith that they are correct.
The same can be said for people of religion. They have faith that what they believe in is the truth of existence. However, there is very little that can be proven. Many of the theories simply are untestable by our current levels of technological advancement. Does that mean that we will never be able to test religous theories? No, we may one day be able to test those theories and prove or disprove their truths.
The Pope himself has stated that evolution is a very good theory. He followed that up by saying that God started/created evolution. This was decreed by the Pope only a few years ago. Look it up, or choose to ignore that actual fact, like many Christians do.
Who is to say that the Pope is wrong? It is very possible that evolution was created by God, it is possible that evolution simply happened through ways we have yet to be able to fully explain. The major difference is that we have better prove of evolution than we do of God.
Once again, that does not mean that there is no God. It is just something that we currently are unable to prove or disprove. The faith in the existence of God is to great to simply dismiss. We just need sound methods or proving or disproving God's existence.
One way that would prove that God exists is for him/her/it to show up on international TV and simply say, "Hey, I am God. Check this out..." (Waves hands) "Here is a new species." Until then, people simply have to have faith that God exists. One day, we may have another method of proving whether or not God exists, right now that is all we can hope for.
Believing in something can be a strong thing and simply cannot be denied. Whether that is the theory of God or the theory of anything. Until it is proven to fully be truth and is more than simply words, all you can have is faith in what you believe.
I am not claiming either as being fully correct or fully incorrect, I am merely sharing my beliefs on these subjects.
The same thing can be said for creationism. The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your religous beliefs. I can look at what you say is proof of creationsism and simply ignore it, just as you can look at proof of evolution and simply ignore it.
Both are built upon faith. They are just faith in diferent things. Although, I have to say that you are ignoring what it is to be a Christian, if that is your religion. Because, Christians follow the teachings of Christ.
Jesus, was known to consort with anyone and taught people to refrain from judging people. So, by judging the belief and people that have faith in evolution, you are going against the teachings of Jesus. You have no right to do that, you simply have no right to judge.
Only GOD could judge a person by their actions, you proclaiming otherwise puts you at odds with GOD. So, if you dislike the idea of evolution, simply do not believe in it. I am not judging you, simply stating the facts.
A real Chrisian would never judge a person, because that is what Jesus taught. I think he said something along the lines of, "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone."
I am not a Christian, simply someone that my family is attempting to convert. I only know what information they feed me and that is one thing that they really stress to me.
If Linux, or any other OS and or OS component stays terribly comlpex, it stands a lower chance of moving forward in usage.
There are a few notable exceptions, like Apache. Although, I can hazard to guess that most of those setups of Apache are with default settings and thus may have many features active that the web page being served is not taking advantage of.
Many people like componitized GUI configuration tools that explain how hings function. Many of these tools have a hierarchical and logical layout that can often explain how the components interact with one another with visual cues as well as with words.
While I am able to understand both, I have to say that I much prefer to see the visual cues. There are many people out there that only understand the visual cues.
While they probably shouldn't be administrators, that is not for you and I to say. Well, unless of course you are the certifying authority for every single administrator on the planet.
Besides, since when does making something easier to setup exclude security? If you are concerned about it being unsecure, then simply find out how it is insecure and help make it secure. Like or not, that is the future of Linux.
There are two things you can do about it. You can sit on the sideline grumbling about how GUI tools are so insecure (While spending 8 hours manually configuring systems, while a GUI/CLI-Oriented Admin sets the whole thing up in about 2 Hours.) The other thing you can do is help test those GUI tools, help insure that they are secure and limit the possibility of making systems insecure.
--
.sig seperator
--
...is done by people actually manipulating 3D objects, models and landscapes. That work is performed on SGI workstations. Once all the "Real Work" is completed, they push their data to computers that do nothing more than simply slap some real detailed skin onto the models and generate a higher level of realism onto the scenes.
That last part takes very little human intervention. Pretty much nothing more than put the image onto the points that the human mapped out, while on the real hardware.
The Linux Render Farms are just that. Render Farms. It is akin to a farmer planting his seeds into the soil. The soil lets the plants grow. The Render Farm simply lets the scenes grow.
...I have mentioned this many times before. Linux needs a simplistic method of Left-Clicking on a folder and simply sharing that out over a network, much like Windows.
Now, Mandrake delivers! That is awesome. I would have done it myself. The only thing is, I am unable to code myself out of a box and I can barely code my way into a box for that matter.
The next step that Mandrake should take is to generate a small-end, medium-range server install and Linux has the chance of becoming the server of choice for small to medium sized businesses. This will take competition to the one place that Microsoft truly excells in. (Please, this is not a flamebait or a troll. That is the truth, just look at most small to medium sized businesses, it is what they run.)
While I recently switched back to Red Hat, due to the lack of CLI tools that I love and the fact that Red Hat has had better laptop support for sometime, Mandrake may again grace one or more hard drives on my network. Of course, now I will need to take time to load up all the tools I love.
...loophole in the GPL through their army of dark lawyers(The Devil's Advocate) and makes the Linux Kernel and all of Red Hat's technology proprietary. Then all Red Hat derived distros would be squashed.
The EFF would do its very best to battle of this travesty against the LGPL, GPL and other Open Source Licenses. They pit all of their guardians of the law and freedom against the neverending juggernaut of money that AOL/Time Warner is.
The EFF does its best and attempts to battle in court, but is just unable to handle the onslaught of 250 AOL/Time Warner lawyers. The three to five EFF Lawyers begin to buckle.
In the last hour they cook up a scheme to be able to battle back. They put up a plea for freedom and ask that every geek give them $21.99 every month to help build a mighty legal team.
All of use look at their request and then get nasty about it all over Slashdot. Three days later, the EFF goes down and OSS is forever destroyed.
Two weeks later, Steve Case and Bill Gates sign an agreement extending AOL's use of Internet Explorer as the only AOL Browser for the next 1000 years. Thus, the 4th Riech is born.
AOL, Asia Online. It is pretty simple. With the latest proclamations of several Asian nations that they are going to Linux on government PCs it is logical to imagine that those government workers would use Linux on their home PCs (If they have them.)
The next "Big" market for Online services and controled content is in Asia. Plus, the Chinese government would probably love a company like AOL, if they only provide government approved content.
It could even be made into the only officially sponsored online services. The Chinese government wouldn't need to do it themselves. AOL would make their money and the Chinese government would have all the controls that they tell AOL to include.
It was an original series episode. In the episode, the Enterprise got caught in one of the "calculated" disintegrator beams.
The laws of the planet demanded that the entire crew of the Enterprise beam down to the planet and have themselves put into a disintegration chamber. Kirk, Spock and I believe McCoy were planetside.
The episode ended when Kirk destroyed the "Master" Computer that did the calculations in an effort to show both races how terrible was really was. Aparently, this was to cause both sides to start using real weapons.
Anyway, that is the gist of the story. I wish I wish I could recall the episode name... Of course, someone more "geeky" than me will show me up on that one...
How many businesses run Solaris x86? Not nearly as many that run Windows, which is more than run Solaris on Sparc. However, that is beside the point.
Which would you rather hire for a junior position administrating Solaris?
Someone with basic Unix experience, using Linux and possible *BSD? (Both of which run on x86 hardware.)
Or someone that has experience with Linux, *BSD and Solaris, even if that Solaris happens to have only been the x86 version?
Most people would hire the second person as that person has actually done some work on Solaris. In my own experience, while hardware can make a diference in performance, knowing the OS is typically the more dificult of the two to learn. Hardware knowledge can be fairly easy to pick up over time.
Again, tell me why it is more important to buy a Sparc machine than eat food and keep a roof over your head.
I am teaching myself the basic ins and outs of Solaris 8 x86, on an old Pentium 200Mhz MMX CPU that was given to me with a mainboard and 32MB of RAM.
My cost, nil. Which is lower than $999 for a Sunblade, which I would love to have.
However, I am only beginning my IT career and really dont' have the extra money to rush out and buy a Sunblade or even a used Sparc system. Most of the used systems I have seen are either abysmally slow or above my price range.
Cheap for one person, is a whole other world for someone else. It is all relative. Most of the people learning Solaris on x86 are similiar to myself. Meaning they would love to use Sparc equipment. However, they need to eat also.
--
.sig seperator
--
Re:Now all it really needs...
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 2
I have used SWAT, I have used Webmin and I have manually edited the configuration files. I have never seen a tool in KDE or GNOME that will accomplish what I am looking for. What I would love to see is a simple, right-click on the folder and then left-click on the share option in the menu.
Once this feature is added to Linux, small business people and small IT consulting services can begin to look at Linux as a viable option.
Until then, only people with time and interest in banging their heads against a wall will use Linux. Being one of those people, I know what it is like.
--
.sig seperator
--
Re:Now all it really needs...
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 2
NIS?, that works for me. Now answer the second, more important piece of my comment.
Show me a kernel incorported Samba configuration that allows shares to be created on the fly, as you can under the Windows OS.
By the way, I am unable to claim that I am a guru or true expert on everything Linux related. I have never read anything about NIS, until your insightful post.
--
.sig seperator
--
Now all it really needs...
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have said this many times before and many people agree with me on this. All Samba (and Linux) needs is a simple way of graphically browsing and right-clicking, then choosing a menu option of share. It also needs to become more incorporated into the operating system to allow one single listing of user accounts, instead of one list for Samba, one list for the OS.
This will do wonders for opening up Linux to places that it currently is unable to get into. I am not saying that those other lists need to go away, because there are plenty of times when having those additional, seperate, user lists can be beneficial to security.
Will having a powerful feature like that seriously hinder the stability and security of Linux? I personally believe that that wouldn't be an issue, if implemented properly.
Until that day, unfortunately, Linux will remain a backroom OS only usable by those that enjoy learning and battling with dificult to follow configuration files. I happen to enjoy that, but I cannot count the number of times that a Samba config gave me minor issues with a single config line.
The news that I really want to hear is someone proclaiming that they have built a Linux distro that allows you to easily setup the system with one single user listing and the ability to configure network shares very similiar to how you can do so under Windows.
I know, it is a blasphemous thing to say. However, it is the truth. It will help Linux grow in market share, usability and seriously help Linux gain more ground over Windows.
If I had the time, I would work on it myself. I just don't have the time and energy for such an ambitous project. Please,take this idea and run with it.
I don't care who you think you are and what you think you know. A computer model can only show you so much.
A computer model can give you an excellent look at what could possibly happen when you build the actual thing you are modeling.
To be truly sure of what will happen, you must test the actual product itself. If that means you need to blow something up, then you do that.
What you really learn with computer models, is what will never work. The models simply help you design something that is most likely going to work. Then you pull out your newly built test toy and give it a workout.
Would you honestly get into an airplane that was fully computer-tested, but never tested in the real world? I wouldn't, that is what test pilots are for. Would you buy an automobile that was crash tested only on a computer? I wouldn't, a human mind that programmed the software simply cannot program every single variable that can occur in the real world.
But, back to point that you chose to pick at in my post. Geniuses with supercomputers, building rockets.
Sure, you can design a rocket. I can do that on my PC at home. I know a little about basic rocketry and can create a great model rocket that can go quite a distance.
Now, I just don't have the $10,000 that I figure it would cost to build this micro-launch vehicle and also the safety equipment that I believe would be needed.
Now, multiply this by an incredible magnitude. Then look at the Gross Domestic Product of some of those "rogue" nations. They simply don't have the monetary resources to build such weapons. If they did, their people starve and die by the thousands/millions.
What they can afford is the cost to build large cannons, SCUD-like missiles and large bomber aircraft. Those systems are a little more reusable (save the SCUD) and much more cost effective. Sure, you limit your range, but most of your targets are within a spit into the wind from you.
So, do you spend the incredibly high millions and make your people starve, to be able to hit a country, with one ICBM, anywhere on the planet? Or, do you build many reusable launch platforms that can hit all of your enemies with?
Logic would dictate that you would want to destroy all of your enemies that happen to be right next door to you.
Thinking about Nuclear weapons with a Super-Power mindset is just not right anymore. Smaller non-Super-Power countries have diferent concerns and wish to eliminate their local enemies. Most of them have very few enemies that they could not reach with the extreme range of their current weaponry.
If they do have such enemies, then they would look into suitcase nukes, High-jacking fuel-laden jets and slamming them into buildings as well as other terrorist-based activities.
When Chernobyl (sp?) melted down the reason that we were so concerned in the US is that the Jet stream. You know, that thing that is air moving, it doesn't seem to care about international boarders and it surely doesn't care what poisons that it carries with it.
Anyway, some of the fallout from that disaster made it all across a large are in the old-Soviet Union. If I am not mistaken, some of the fallout also came down in China and other areas of the globe.
So, if we were concerned with a meltdown at a nuclear plant, would it be more or less important to worry about the fallout from very powerful weapons that will throw dust and radioactive matter higher up into the sky then Chernobyl? Of course, if those weapons were to be used they wouldn't all be used in one small section of those countries, perhaps all over the place.
It could also (no pun intended) mushroom into a much larger conflict. Currently China has been strengthening their diplomatic ties with India. The US has more or less tossed their lot in with the Pakistan government and several other countries appear to be lining up behind one or the other.
Currently, world governments are a little concerned with the tensions between India and Pakistan. Both of these countries currently have nuclear weapons and could very easily use them upon one another.
While they could potentially develop ICBM-like launch vehicles, the cost of actually building such devices is terribly prohibitive. The most likely method of use would be with fairly low-tech launch vehicles, similiar to SCUD missiles. They could also use large cannon and the all-time favorite, heavy bomber aircraft.
Considering that most of these countries are more interested in blowing eachother up, than the US. The United States has very little to worry about.
Again, we created our space program as a stepping stone for the ICBM technology. Once more, that was not done with supercomputer technology, but with Human Minds!
You can have all the high technology on the planet. However, it doesn't mean a hoot, if you don't have the minds that know how to take advantage of it and also have the basic knowledge of what you are attempting to build.
I say let them have supercomputers, just ban the brain export. Once more, a good number of the world's rocket scientists have come out of colleges in the US.
If the US government really wants to stop the possibility of a "rogue" nation acquiring the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction, they should simply dissallow foreign nationals the right to obtain such degrees in the US, or take away their right to leave the US after obtaining such a degree.
Supercomputers don't make Nuclear weapons or ICBMs, people do...
Slashdot Mirror
That is true parents are unable to be with their children 24/7. However, the time that they are with their children, they need to instill values and teach the difference between right and wrong.
o l. html
Sure, there are some children that you will never be able to teach the difference between right and wrong. Typically, those children have severe mental disorders. Which, if I am remembering correctly, describes the two kids from Columbine. I believe that one or both were on psycotropic medication.
While the next few words that I write will be terrible and it was a terrible time in our country for people with mental disorders, it did happen.
30 years ago, children with mental disorders were not allowed in normal schools and many were not put into society. They were confined to state run mental institutions. While the conditions were terrible in most of those places and they cost a whole helluva lot of money to maintain, those children and adults were kept out of society and were kept in a manner that protected both themselves and society as a whole.
Durring the past 30 years, those hospitals have begun to be shutdown by "well-meaning" government officials and people that simply want to save the taxpayers money. Since that time, those children and adults that were dangerous to society have been thrust into a society that is unable to cope with them. These people are put on heavy mind-altering psycotropic medication that they would rather not take, because they don't feel normal and functional when on that medication.
The majority of those people are not dangerous and would not, even if they were off of their medication. I have a very close friend that is one of the non-dangerous types. It is scary when he is off of his medication, but he poses only a danger to himself.
Unfortunately, the dangerous, murderous types are also walking about in society. Free to stop taking their medication at any time. They could be your next-door neighbor. The scary bum walking down the street. These people were once kept from society, as terrible as the conditions were society had fewer of these issues.
You and I know the difference between right and wrong. People that suffer from severe mental disorders do not and nothing will stop them from doing what they will do.
The following link is to a site that has some additional information regarding all of the children that have committed those terrible acts of violence in schools. Please not that most of them were some form of mind-altering medications prescribed by psychiartrists.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/schvi
Attempting to hide violence from children is never going to save society. Violence has existed within society for thousands of years and will continue to exist for longer than that.
--
.sig seperator
--
That is true parents are unable to be with their children 24/7. However, the time that they are with their children, they need to instill values and teach the difference between right and wrong.
Sure, there are some children that you will never be able to teach the difference between right and wrong. Typically, those children have severe mental disorders. Which, if I am remembering correctly, describes the two kids from Columbine. I believe that one or both were on psycotropic medication.
While the next few words that I write will be terrible and it was a terrible time in our country for people with mental disorders, it did happen.
30 years ago, children with mental disorders were not allowed in normal schools and many were not put into society. They were confined to state run mental institutions. While the conditions were terrible in most of those places and they cost a whole helluva lot of money to maintain, those children and adults were kept out of society and were kept in a manner that protected both themselves and society as a whole.
Durring the past 30 years, those hospitals have begun to be shutdown by "well-meaning" government officials and people that simply want to save the taxpayers money. Since that time, those children and adults that were dangerous to society have been thrust into a society that is unable to cope with them. These people are put on heavy mind-altering psycotropic medication that they would rather not take, because they don't feel normal and functional when on that medication.
The majority of those people are not dangerous and would not, even if they were off of their medication. I have a very close friend that is one of the non-dangerous types. It is scary when he is off of his medication, but he poses only a danger to himself.
Unfortunately, the dangerous, murderous types are also walking about in society. Free to stop taking their medication at any time. They could be your next-door neighbor. The scary bum walking down the street. These people were once kept from society, as terrible as the conditions were society had fewer of these issues.
You and I know the difference between right and wrong. People that suffer from severe mental disorders do not and nothing will stop them from doing what they will do.
The following link is to a site that has some additional information regarding all of the children that have committed those terrible acts of violence in schools. Please not that most of them were some form of mind-altering medications prescribed by psychiartrists.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/schvi
Attempting to hide violence from children is never going to save society. Violence has existed within society for thousands of years and will continue to exist for longer than that.
--
.sig seperator
--
About a new possible Bill in the State of Michigan regarding the sale and rental of video games that have violent content in them.
I am going to find out who this idiot is and ask him why he believes that parents are incapable of raising their children.
I was also going to point out that a law similiar to this was passed and then reveresed in court, in the city of Indianapolis recently.
Parents do not need additional laws that give them even more reason to shirk their duties in raising their children. If they do, then they really shouldn't be parents. Work a few less hours and frikkin' raise your children. I know that when I have children, I or my wife, whomever is making less, will stay home and raise the children.
Again, those children in Columbine, including most of the "Copy-cat" children, were all on some kind of psycotropic medication, had two parents that worked more hours than they spent with their kids and probably barely knew what their kids were doing, thinking or planning.
That never happened to me, because my parents were there. Sure, sometimes they seemed annoying, but for the most part, they spent time with me and my siblings. They took us places, explained the actual difference between right and wrong and helped us become the good citizens that we are today.
Today's children don't have parents, they have lax animal trainers that are barely there to feed and change, let alone train the children they bore. Get a grip people, stop supporting these silly laws and start supporting your children.
Another thing, your children are growing up. If you don't teach them about the REAL WORLD, then they are going to learn all the dangers on their own. If that means they get pregnant at 15, then that is really your fault for choosing not to talk to them about sex. If they end up whacked out on drugs, again, you should have talked to them about drugs.
My parents did that for me and yours may have done that for you. If you turned out okay and actually had parents there to raise you. What makes you think that your children will be okay without parents?
--
.sig seperator
--
There is a problem with a program that has little to do with me. However, they are looking for a scapegoat and the general concensus that if it hits my area, then I am the sacrificial lamb.
The thing that sucks is that I am the most technically proficient and the best with dealing with the modern technical issues in my area.
I suppose this gives me reason to move on to bigger and better things now.
--
.sig seperator
--
There is a point, please read the whole thing...
From reading the basic decription of the product. I have summized that not only does it violate the DCMA, it may also violate standard copyright law.
I also must agree with several posters that state the same thing regarding the designed use of CD-R/RW drives and the latest DVD Burners. Of course, this may also be loosely applied to floppy disk drives. All of the devices mentioned in this paragraph resemble the intended function of the device from this article.
In most cases, everyone is stating how patently absurd this DMCA law is. However, it is law. Laws exist until they are challenged, in court and found to be incapable of being upheld in a court of law.
So, what I propse is a simple use of the DMCA, to utterly cause its own destruction. This is basically what needs to be done.
Any programmer out there, music band or other group please read and consider this statement.
Create a program or application and provide this upon CD or DVD. Make sure that this is a professionally generated CD. This can be expensive, but can be worth it.
Once you have this application CD out there. Simply open up a case against the manufacturers of all CD-RW and DVD Burners in the US. Make the claim that they are violating the DMCA since your application, which was meant to only be distributed on your CDs, can now be digitally copied. Make certain that this claim can be backed up as violating the encryption or other form of protection that you have used with your application.
Send forth a letter to each of those companies, demanding that they cease and desist with the design and manufacture of said devices and to ship all of those devices to you, for proper destruction.
Either one of two things will happen. It will be upheld in a court of law and most of us will now be outlaws with our "illegal" CD duplication devices, or those same companies will push the case to the Supreme Court which will simply toss out the DMCA.
Any takers? I would do it. However, I can barely code myself out of a box, or into one, for that matter.
Of course, it might not be that simple. Please feel free to add to this statement. This might be the only way to get rid of such a patently insipid law.
--
.sig seperator
--
They do the same thing with Windows. Of course, they are unable to help it if a machine gets hosed by adding and removing a few applications.
Whenever they release a new piece of hardware, whether it is the latest and greatest CPU or some other whiz-bang technology this is what they do. Of course, when it comes to launching a new CPU design, they get ahold of reference designs and final run chips several months before they are even announced to the public, as existing, by Intel or AMD.
For instance HP and many of the other major OEMs may already have 2.5 or faster CPUs from Intel in either reference, or final run chips. They have to test those, otherwise they will end up with all sorts of headaches as they rush poorly tested product out to the field.
It is the same way with the smaller OEMs, the only major difference is there is little advance handling of CPUs that are getting ready to hit the market.
--
.sig seperator
--
The reason that they are shipping a year old system is that that is what they tested with. They confirmed that their hardware will all function fine under that version of Linux. They must have fully tested and configured all aspects of the machine to be confident that what they are selling will work with the minimal amount of fuss.
Since they may have spent six months or more testing, tweaking and then retesting, that is what they will ship. The testing cycle of any new product takes time and care. Simply slapping it together and seeing that is "mostly" works is just not good enough to put your name on something.
HP is probably beginning to test or are nearing completion of testing Red Hat 7.2 on their systems. In another 6 months or so, they will probably have those systems ready to ship.
That is the way that business operates. You will understand when, or if, you get into a position with a company that is looking at updating systems. Knowing that something "works" is not the same as knowing that it works by testing the heck out of it.
--
.sig seperator
--
The states could also happen up on a few lines from actual GPL'd code. Some of those comments about the GPL could still be in some of those
At least that is my theory about why MS has been so darn (afraid?) of GPL software and its license. I figure that they must have a handful of GPL code pieces in their Windows product.
--
.sig seperator
--
The Law of Gravity is easily defensible. If you drop a rock, it will fall. That can be endless proven, which makes it easily defensible.
The great flood that the Bible speaks of could very easily be the creation of, I believe either the Red or Black Seas. There is great evidence that one of those two seas were very quickly created incredibly quickly by either an earthquake or something causing a mountainous area to rupture allowing seawater to rush into a low-lying lake area.
However, the Great Flood does little to explain the existense of practically any of the creatures living in Australia or the Galapagos Islands. It doesn't explain why there are some many variations in Human beings. It also doesn't explain why the Chinese have written word that dates back much farther, by several thousand years, than the Bible. Which, if I am not mistaken would be when the Great Flood occurred.
Explain to me what the Bible says about those things.
--
.sig seperator
--
A theory is an idea or belief that has been concocted by a scientist to explain a portion of the universe. Until this theory can be wholly proven or wholly disproved the scientist and others that believe in that matter have faith that they are correct.
The same can be said for people of religion. They have faith that what they believe in is the truth of existence. However, there is very little that can be proven. Many of the theories simply are untestable by our current levels of technological advancement. Does that mean that we will never be able to test religous theories? No, we may one day be able to test those theories and prove or disprove their truths.
The Pope himself has stated that evolution is a very good theory. He followed that up by saying that God started/created evolution. This was decreed by the Pope only a few years ago. Look it up, or choose to ignore that actual fact, like many Christians do.
Who is to say that the Pope is wrong? It is very possible that evolution was created by God, it is possible that evolution simply happened through ways we have yet to be able to fully explain. The major difference is that we have better prove of evolution than we do of God.
Once again, that does not mean that there is no God. It is just something that we currently are unable to prove or disprove. The faith in the existence of God is to great to simply dismiss. We just need sound methods or proving or disproving God's existence.
One way that would prove that God exists is for him/her/it to show up on international TV and simply say, "Hey, I am God. Check this out..." (Waves hands) "Here is a new species." Until then, people simply have to have faith that God exists. One day, we may have another method of proving whether or not God exists, right now that is all we can hope for.
Believing in something can be a strong thing and simply cannot be denied. Whether that is the theory of God or the theory of anything. Until it is proven to fully be truth and is more than simply words, all you can have is faith in what you believe.
I am not claiming either as being fully correct or fully incorrect, I am merely sharing my beliefs on these subjects.
--
.sig seperator
--
The same thing can be said for creationism. The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your religous beliefs. I can look at what you say is proof of creationsism and simply ignore it, just as you can look at proof of evolution and simply ignore it.
Both are built upon faith. They are just faith in diferent things. Although, I have to say that you are ignoring what it is to be a Christian, if that is your religion. Because, Christians follow the teachings of Christ.
Jesus, was known to consort with anyone and taught people to refrain from judging people. So, by judging the belief and people that have faith in evolution, you are going against the teachings of Jesus. You have no right to do that, you simply have no right to judge.
Only GOD could judge a person by their actions, you proclaiming otherwise puts you at odds with GOD. So, if you dislike the idea of evolution, simply do not believe in it. I am not judging you, simply stating the facts.
A real Chrisian would never judge a person, because that is what Jesus taught. I think he said something along the lines of, "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone."
I am not a Christian, simply someone that my family is attempting to convert. I only know what information they feed me and that is one thing that they really stress to me.
--
.sig seperator
--
If Linux, or any other OS and or OS component stays terribly comlpex, it stands a lower chance of moving forward in usage.
There are a few notable exceptions, like Apache. Although, I can hazard to guess that most of those setups of Apache are with default settings and thus may have many features active that the web page being served is not taking advantage of.
Many people like componitized GUI configuration tools that explain how hings function. Many of these tools have a hierarchical and logical layout that can often explain how the components interact with one another with visual cues as well as with words.
While I am able to understand both, I have to say that I much prefer to see the visual cues. There are many people out there that only understand the visual cues.
While they probably shouldn't be administrators, that is not for you and I to say. Well, unless of course you are the certifying authority for every single administrator on the planet.
Besides, since when does making something easier to setup exclude security? If you are concerned about it being unsecure, then simply find out how it is insecure and help make it secure. Like or not, that is the future of Linux.
There are two things you can do about it. You can sit on the sideline grumbling about how GUI tools are so insecure (While spending 8 hours manually configuring systems, while a GUI/CLI-Oriented Admin sets the whole thing up in about 2 Hours.) The other thing you can do is help test those GUI tools, help insure that they are secure and limit the possibility of making systems insecure.
--
.sig seperator
--
That last part takes very little human intervention. Pretty much nothing more than put the image onto the points that the human mapped out, while on the real hardware.
The Linux Render Farms are just that. Render Farms. It is akin to a farmer planting his seeds into the soil. The soil lets the plants grow. The Render Farm simply lets the scenes grow.
Get a clue, you x86 32-bit ninny.
--
.sig seperator
--
Now, Mandrake delivers! That is awesome. I would have done it myself. The only thing is, I am unable to code myself out of a box and I can barely code my way into a box for that matter.
The next step that Mandrake should take is to generate a small-end, medium-range server install and Linux has the chance of becoming the server of choice for small to medium sized businesses. This will take competition to the one place that Microsoft truly excells in. (Please, this is not a flamebait or a troll. That is the truth, just look at most small to medium sized businesses, it is what they run.)
While I recently switched back to Red Hat, due to the lack of CLI tools that I love and the fact that Red Hat has had better laptop support for sometime, Mandrake may again grace one or more hard drives on my network. Of course, now I will need to take time to load up all the tools I love.
Shouldn't be any problem though.
--
.sig seperator
--
The EFF would do its very best to battle of this travesty against the LGPL, GPL and other Open Source Licenses. They pit all of their guardians of the law and freedom against the neverending juggernaut of money that AOL/Time Warner is.
The EFF does its best and attempts to battle in court, but is just unable to handle the onslaught of 250 AOL/Time Warner lawyers. The three to five EFF Lawyers begin to buckle.
In the last hour they cook up a scheme to be able to battle back. They put up a plea for freedom and ask that every geek give them $21.99 every month to help build a mighty legal team.
All of use look at their request and then get nasty about it all over Slashdot. Three days later, the EFF goes down and OSS is forever destroyed.
Two weeks later, Steve Case and Bill Gates sign an agreement extending AOL's use of Internet Explorer as the only AOL Browser for the next 1000 years. Thus, the 4th Riech is born.
I think that is the worse that could happen...
--
.sig seperator
--
AOL, Asia Online. It is pretty simple. With the latest proclamations of several Asian nations that they are going to Linux on government PCs it is logical to imagine that those government workers would use Linux on their home PCs (If they have them.)
The next "Big" market for Online services and controled content is in Asia. Plus, the Chinese government would probably love a company like AOL, if they only provide government approved content.
It could even be made into the only officially sponsored online services. The Chinese government wouldn't need to do it themselves. AOL would make their money and the Chinese government would have all the controls that they tell AOL to include.
Just a rabid guess...
I suppose this shows how "geeky" I am...
It was an original series episode. In the episode, the Enterprise got caught in one of the "calculated" disintegrator beams.
The laws of the planet demanded that the entire crew of the Enterprise beam down to the planet and have themselves put into a disintegration chamber. Kirk, Spock and I believe McCoy were planetside.
The episode ended when Kirk destroyed the "Master" Computer that did the calculations in an effort to show both races how terrible was really was. Aparently, this was to cause both sides to start using real weapons.
Anyway, that is the gist of the story. I wish I wish I could recall the episode name... Of course, someone more "geeky" than me will show me up on that one...
Hehehehe...
--
.sig seperator
--
How many businesses run Solaris x86? Not nearly as many that run Windows, which is more than run Solaris on Sparc. However, that is beside the point.
Which would you rather hire for a junior position administrating Solaris?
Someone with basic Unix experience, using Linux and possible *BSD? (Both of which run on x86 hardware.)
Or someone that has experience with Linux, *BSD and Solaris, even if that Solaris happens to have only been the x86 version?
Most people would hire the second person as that person has actually done some work on Solaris. In my own experience, while hardware can make a diference in performance, knowing the OS is typically the more dificult of the two to learn. Hardware knowledge can be fairly easy to pick up over time.
Again, tell me why it is more important to buy a Sparc machine than eat food and keep a roof over your head.
--
.sig seperator
--
I am teaching myself the basic ins and outs of Solaris 8 x86, on an old Pentium 200Mhz MMX CPU that was given to me with a mainboard and 32MB of RAM.
My cost, nil. Which is lower than $999 for a Sunblade, which I would love to have.
However, I am only beginning my IT career and really dont' have the extra money to rush out and buy a Sunblade or even a used Sparc system. Most of the used systems I have seen are either abysmally slow or above my price range.
Cheap for one person, is a whole other world for someone else. It is all relative. Most of the people learning Solaris on x86 are similiar to myself. Meaning they would love to use Sparc equipment. However, they need to eat also.
--
.sig seperator
--
I have used SWAT, I have used Webmin and I have manually edited the configuration files. I have never seen a tool in KDE or GNOME that will accomplish what I am looking for. What I would love to see is a simple, right-click on the folder and then left-click on the share option in the menu.
Once this feature is added to Linux, small business people and small IT consulting services can begin to look at Linux as a viable option.
Until then, only people with time and interest in banging their heads against a wall will use Linux. Being one of those people, I know what it is like.
--
.sig seperator
--
NIS?, that works for me. Now answer the second, more important piece of my comment.
Show me a kernel incorported Samba configuration that allows shares to be created on the fly, as you can under the Windows OS.
By the way, I am unable to claim that I am a guru or true expert on everything Linux related. I have never read anything about NIS, until your insightful post.
--
.sig seperator
--
I have said this many times before and many people agree with me on this. All Samba (and Linux) needs is a simple way of graphically browsing and right-clicking, then choosing a menu option of share. It also needs to become more incorporated into the operating system to allow one single listing of user accounts, instead of one list for Samba, one list for the OS.
This will do wonders for opening up Linux to places that it currently is unable to get into. I am not saying that those other lists need to go away, because there are plenty of times when having those additional, seperate, user lists can be beneficial to security.
Will having a powerful feature like that seriously hinder the stability and security of Linux? I personally believe that that wouldn't be an issue, if implemented properly.
Until that day, unfortunately, Linux will remain a backroom OS only usable by those that enjoy learning and battling with dificult to follow configuration files. I happen to enjoy that, but I cannot count the number of times that a Samba config gave me minor issues with a single config line.
The news that I really want to hear is someone proclaiming that they have built a Linux distro that allows you to easily setup the system with one single user listing and the ability to configure network shares very similiar to how you can do so under Windows.
I know, it is a blasphemous thing to say. However, it is the truth. It will help Linux grow in market share, usability and seriously help Linux gain more ground over Windows.
If I had the time, I would work on it myself. I just don't have the time and energy for such an ambitous project. Please,take this idea and run with it.
--
.sig seperator
--
I don't care who you think you are and what you think you know. A computer model can only show you so much.
A computer model can give you an excellent look at what could possibly happen when you build the actual thing you are modeling.
To be truly sure of what will happen, you must test the actual product itself. If that means you need to blow something up, then you do that.
What you really learn with computer models, is what will never work. The models simply help you design something that is most likely going to work. Then you pull out your newly built test toy and give it a workout.
Would you honestly get into an airplane that was fully computer-tested, but never tested in the real world? I wouldn't, that is what test pilots are for. Would you buy an automobile that was crash tested only on a computer? I wouldn't, a human mind that programmed the software simply cannot program every single variable that can occur in the real world.
But, back to point that you chose to pick at in my post. Geniuses with supercomputers, building rockets.
Sure, you can design a rocket. I can do that on my PC at home. I know a little about basic rocketry and can create a great model rocket that can go quite a distance.
Now, I just don't have the $10,000 that I figure it would cost to build this micro-launch vehicle and also the safety equipment that I believe would be needed.
Now, multiply this by an incredible magnitude. Then look at the Gross Domestic Product of some of those "rogue" nations. They simply don't have the monetary resources to build such weapons. If they did, their people starve and die by the thousands/millions.
What they can afford is the cost to build large cannons, SCUD-like missiles and large bomber aircraft. Those systems are a little more reusable (save the SCUD) and much more cost effective. Sure, you limit your range, but most of your targets are within a spit into the wind from you.
So, do you spend the incredibly high millions and make your people starve, to be able to hit a country, with one ICBM, anywhere on the planet? Or, do you build many reusable launch platforms that can hit all of your enemies with?
Logic would dictate that you would want to destroy all of your enemies that happen to be right next door to you.
Thinking about Nuclear weapons with a Super-Power mindset is just not right anymore. Smaller non-Super-Power countries have diferent concerns and wish to eliminate their local enemies. Most of them have very few enemies that they could not reach with the extreme range of their current weaponry.
If they do have such enemies, then they would look into suitcase nukes, High-jacking fuel-laden jets and slamming them into buildings as well as other terrorist-based activities.
--
.sig seperator
--
When Chernobyl (sp?) melted down the reason that we were so concerned in the US is that the Jet stream. You know, that thing that is air moving, it doesn't seem to care about international boarders and it surely doesn't care what poisons that it carries with it.
Anyway, some of the fallout from that disaster made it all across a large are in the old-Soviet Union. If I am not mistaken, some of the fallout also came down in China and other areas of the globe.
So, if we were concerned with a meltdown at a nuclear plant, would it be more or less important to worry about the fallout from very powerful weapons that will throw dust and radioactive matter higher up into the sky then Chernobyl? Of course, if those weapons were to be used they wouldn't all be used in one small section of those countries, perhaps all over the place.
It could also (no pun intended) mushroom into a much larger conflict. Currently China has been strengthening their diplomatic ties with India. The US has more or less tossed their lot in with the Pakistan government and several other countries appear to be lining up behind one or the other.
--
.sig seperator
--
Currently, world governments are a little concerned with the tensions between India and Pakistan. Both of these countries currently have nuclear weapons and could very easily use them upon one another.
While they could potentially develop ICBM-like launch vehicles, the cost of actually building such devices is terribly prohibitive. The most likely method of use would be with fairly low-tech launch vehicles, similiar to SCUD missiles. They could also use large cannon and the all-time favorite, heavy bomber aircraft.
Considering that most of these countries are more interested in blowing eachother up, than the US. The United States has very little to worry about.
Again, we created our space program as a stepping stone for the ICBM technology. Once more, that was not done with supercomputer technology, but with Human Minds!
You can have all the high technology on the planet. However, it doesn't mean a hoot, if you don't have the minds that know how to take advantage of it and also have the basic knowledge of what you are attempting to build.
I say let them have supercomputers, just ban the brain export. Once more, a good number of the world's rocket scientists have come out of colleges in the US.
If the US government really wants to stop the possibility of a "rogue" nation acquiring the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction, they should simply dissallow foreign nationals the right to obtain such degrees in the US, or take away their right to leave the US after obtaining such a degree.
Supercomputers don't make Nuclear weapons or ICBMs, people do...
--
.sig seperator
--