Indeed, if it could be locked down, then locking it down would be the "easiest" thing. Trouble is, unless you can put a physical lock on the box you are just using a bow knot to tie the front door closed when you leave. Pull the battery, and bios defaults to no password. You now can boot from CD. You can now alter any damn thing you please. Sure, using disk images the changes go away when you reboot. Which means the first 3 minutes of the next class is used to get it right back where the student wants it. The only way to secure anything is to control the physical location. If you are giving students access to the box, then the box has to be (physically) locked tight. WinXP won't stop you from reseting the admin password to blank, otherwise. And quickly, too.
Um...no, it isn't the economy, it is politics. It was the same way when the economy was up, too. It really comes down to priorities, and in the USA public education is just another of those "you get what you pay for" sort of things. And we aren't willing to pay.
Well but...the point is that in terms of securing the computers, throwing away the licenses isn't at all like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Rather, it is more like replacing the dirty water with clean water. It might not be the politically correct solution, but that doesn't mean it isn't a viable solution.
Well but the link you use goes to fornits, who was also involved. Apparently Bock was sued first, but fornits is hardly a disinterested party: "They claim Philip Elberg defeated Sue Scheff and PURE on behalf of his client, Ginger Warbis/Fornits.
The case was dismissed without prejudice - meaning it can be brought back to court on the same claim. It was the decision of Sue Scheff and her Attorney, David Pollack, to focus on one defendant. Philip Elberg won nothing from this case."
"There could be no uncontested facts due to the presence of only 1 litigant."
"Ms. Bock was represented by Jan Atlas of Adorno and Yoss until June 2006 when Mr. Atlas withdrew as counsel, shortly after Ms. Bock was deposed and revealed the only reason she defamed and nearly destroyed Sue Scheff and her organization was simply because she didn't like her. After Jan Atlas withdrew from the case, the Judge postponed the trial to give Ms. Bock ample time to find new counsel or represent herself." via
WebWire
Actually I have over a decade of experience supporting non-geeks. Your attitude towards people is disturbingly dark, because the fact is that people *do* recognize a difference. People can tell when something works better right away. Since most of what they do remains the same (clicking on a link is clicking on a link) the "hardwired" part doesn't change. Adblock and Flashblock, as well as tabbed browsing, make it work faster and smoother. Which is why they stay with Firefox. (I'm also not aware of even a single user that went with "a Windows XP theme", by the way. They seem to either not care, or playfully explore all kinds of weird themes.)
"I think you meant to say no better than regular dual processors as dual cores are better with the inter-processor communication."
Actually what he said was
Pentium-D's two cores, for example, had to use the FSB to communicate with one another, they didn't have a specific, fast, core-to-core bus.
The was no "inter-processor communication" except for the *same* communicatin path that two physically separate CPUs would have to use: the FSB. A strange way to design a system unless you are only competing against dual single core CPUs.
Firefox is the easy app to get people to switch to, though. Get them to try it for one single day, and going back to IE's work flow model is impossible. Maybe after IE redoes their UI it will just be a matter of security, which isn't nearly as sexy as just plain performing so much better. Even MBA students (ever a conservative crowd) stay switched, if you can get them to try it. Of course its hard to quantify UI design. I mean, hell, some people *prefer* a command line!;-)
"you don't have to provide source to people you didn't provide binaries to. The people who supplied those binaries inherit that obligation."
It depends on whether they distributed them commercially. The FAQ puts it this way:
"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
While it says "any third party" rather than "any valid third party", the FAQ does indicate that you have to have recieved the offer for the offer to be in effect for you. I stand corrected.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Actually, if you release binary only, you are required to also give a written offer to provide the source code to "any third party". This means that if Fred buys the binary, Sally can make good on the offer to provide her, as a third party, the source. You can end up with more people requesting the source code than people you've sold binaries to.
Actually that isn't "to those you distribute the binary to", but rather it is to "any third party". It doesn't have to wait for a "trickle down". Not only the people who recieve the binary, but any one else (any third party) who requests it, gets source code, as per the agreement you posted with the binary in the first place.
Actually that was Webster's definition for treason.
I suggest that perhaps you've confused "participation" and "treason".
Voting is a form of participation. Replacing one administration with another (by voting) is *not* overthrowing the form of government. In a democratic republic, the specific process of participating by voting *is* the form of government.
Throwing an election is treason because it is aimed squarely at a fundamental process which is core to our form of government.
"Many conservatives like to be left alone so they don't respond to polls (exit or otherwise.)" Which was suggested at the time. Closer analysis shows that actually in conservative districts people were more willing to participate in the polls. So if anything, rather than undercounted, it must have been overcounted. So the results, based on the "like to be left alone" hypothesis, swing the other way and support the fact that the vote counting was screwy.
They might not understand how a lightbulb works, but they understand that if "their guys" and "the other guys" both have bright boys look at it, odds are better that it doesn't have backdoors built in to it.
Your comment seems off the way, but I'll reply since you were scored +3 insightful. The "absolute nonsense" is based in mathematical statistics, and actions by election officals that courts found to be illegal (but too late to do anything about.) I'm certainly not cynical, but it sounds to me like some people don't want to face the facts when it turns out that someone they wanted to win didn't really.
As I recall, there was a leaked memo or email from the CEO to Bush stating, "Don't worry about Ohio, I can deliver the state for you." Without doubt this was neither ambiguous as to who was recieving the favor, nor what the favor was.
treason: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.
It seems to me that conspiring to throw, and then throwing a presidential election would count as treason.
Well here is my take. If there was fraud and a US Presidential election was thrown, then people should go to jail. This isn't about how wins the next election. This is about who really one the last two elections. If voting "doesn't count" in the US anymore, that is about as serious an issue as can be raised. If you want to cast it as a partisan debate, then you just don't get it.
Well but consider that when the data was looked at more closely, rather than Republicans not being willing to discuss their voting (as was necessary to explain the miscount) it turned out to be exactly the opposite. In terms of looking for faulty methodology, this is a lot simpler than quantum mechanics, and it isn't exactly new. Without doubt, something was very different this time from other all other elections held since the 1960s.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, if it could be locked down, then locking it down would be the "easiest" thing. Trouble is, unless you can put a physical lock on the box you are just using a bow knot to tie the front door closed when you leave. Pull the battery, and bios defaults to no password. You now can boot from CD. You can now alter any damn thing you please. Sure, using disk images the changes go away when you reboot. Which means the first 3 minutes of the next class is used to get it right back where the student wants it. The only way to secure anything is to control the physical location. If you are giving students access to the box, then the box has to be (physically) locked tight. WinXP won't stop you from reseting the admin password to blank, otherwise. And quickly, too.
Um...no, it isn't the economy, it is politics. It was the same way when the economy was up, too. It really comes down to priorities, and in the USA public education is just another of those "you get what you pay for" sort of things. And we aren't willing to pay.
Well but...the point is that in terms of securing the computers, throwing away the licenses isn't at all like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Rather, it is more like replacing the dirty water with clean water. It might not be the politically correct solution, but that doesn't mean it isn't a viable solution.
"I assume that means you must turn off automatic updates on the images..."
Thats the only way I've seen it done.
"but you better have someone competente to at least push out new images..."
Exactly how it is done.
Those who can't even teach gym, administrate.
Chuckled into a full lol. Thats not a troll, thats *funny*!!!
Well but the link you use goes to fornits, who was also involved. Apparently Bock was sued first, but fornits is hardly a disinterested party: "They claim Philip Elberg defeated Sue Scheff and PURE on behalf of his client, Ginger Warbis/Fornits. The case was dismissed without prejudice - meaning it can be brought back to court on the same claim. It was the decision of Sue Scheff and her Attorney, David Pollack, to focus on one defendant. Philip Elberg won nothing from this case."
"There could be no uncontested facts due to the presence of only 1 litigant."
"Ms. Bock was represented by Jan Atlas of Adorno and Yoss until June 2006 when Mr. Atlas withdrew as counsel, shortly after Ms. Bock was deposed and revealed the only reason she defamed and nearly destroyed Sue Scheff and her organization was simply because she didn't like her. After Jan Atlas withdrew from the case, the Judge postponed the trial to give Ms. Bock ample time to find new counsel or represent herself." via WebWire
Actually I have over a decade of experience supporting non-geeks. Your attitude towards people is disturbingly dark, because the fact is that people *do* recognize a difference. People can tell when something works better right away. Since most of what they do remains the same (clicking on a link is clicking on a link) the "hardwired" part doesn't change. Adblock and Flashblock, as well as tabbed browsing, make it work faster and smoother. Which is why they stay with Firefox. (I'm also not aware of even a single user that went with "a Windows XP theme", by the way. They seem to either not care, or playfully explore all kinds of weird themes.)
Actually what he said was The was no "inter-processor communication" except for the *same* communicatin path that two physically separate CPUs would have to use: the FSB. A strange way to design a system unless you are only competing against dual single core CPUs.
Have to admit IceWeasel has a certain mental *tang* to it.
Firefox is the easy app to get people to switch to, though. Get them to try it for one single day, and going back to IE's work flow model is impossible. Maybe after IE redoes their UI it will just be a matter of security, which isn't nearly as sexy as just plain performing so much better. Even MBA students (ever a conservative crowd) stay switched, if you can get them to try it. Of course its hard to quantify UI design. I mean, hell, some people *prefer* a command line! ;-)
It depends on whether they distributed them commercially. The FAQ puts it this way:
While it says "any third party" rather than "any valid third party", the FAQ does indicate that you have to have recieved the offer for the offer to be in effect for you. I stand corrected.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party , for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Actually, if you release binary only, you are required to also give a written offer to provide the source code to "any third party". This means that if Fred buys the binary, Sally can make good on the offer to provide her, as a third party, the source. You can end up with more people requesting the source code than people you've sold binaries to.
Actually that isn't "to those you distribute the binary to", but rather it is to "any third party". It doesn't have to wait for a "trickle down". Not only the people who recieve the binary, but any one else (any third party) who requests it, gets source code, as per the agreement you posted with the binary in the first place.
Actually that was Webster's definition for treason.
I suggest that perhaps you've confused "participation" and "treason".
Voting is a form of participation. Replacing one administration with another (by voting) is *not* overthrowing the form of government. In a democratic republic, the specific process of participating by voting *is* the form of government.
Throwing an election is treason because it is aimed squarely at a fundamental process which is core to our form of government.
Voting is not treason.
"Many conservatives like to be left alone so they don't respond to polls (exit or otherwise.)" Which was suggested at the time. Closer analysis shows that actually in conservative districts people were more willing to participate in the polls. So if anything, rather than undercounted, it must have been overcounted. So the results, based on the "like to be left alone" hypothesis, swing the other way and support the fact that the vote counting was screwy.
They might not understand how a lightbulb works, but they understand that if "their guys" and "the other guys" both have bright boys look at it, odds are better that it doesn't have backdoors built in to it.
Your comment seems off the way, but I'll reply since you were scored +3 insightful. The "absolute nonsense" is based in mathematical statistics, and actions by election officals that courts found to be illegal (but too late to do anything about.) I'm certainly not cynical, but it sounds to me like some people don't want to face the facts when it turns out that someone they wanted to win didn't really.
As I recall, there was a leaked memo or email from the CEO to Bush stating, "Don't worry about Ohio, I can deliver the state for you." Without doubt this was neither ambiguous as to who was recieving the favor, nor what the favor was.
treason: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.
It seems to me that conspiring to throw, and then throwing a presidential election would count as treason.
Well here is my take. If there was fraud and a US Presidential election was thrown, then people should go to jail. This isn't about how wins the next election. This is about who really one the last two elections. If voting "doesn't count" in the US anymore, that is about as serious an issue as can be raised. If you want to cast it as a partisan debate, then you just don't get it.
Well but consider that when the data was looked at more closely, rather than Republicans not being willing to discuss their voting (as was necessary to explain the miscount) it turned out to be exactly the opposite. In terms of looking for faulty methodology, this is a lot simpler than quantum mechanics, and it isn't exactly new. Without doubt, something was very different this time from other all other elections held since the 1960s.