Dear SCO: I hereby declare that, whenever the opportunity arises during my professional career, and for the remainder of the time SCO is in operation as a solvent trading entity, I will attempt to damage your company in every legal manner I can devise.
My wife and I were going through Dublin airport when I noticed that a number of the airport schedule display screens were going through a reboot sequence. I showed it to her : "Hey, looks like that one crashed."
She had to point out that a more alarming interpretation of the word "crashed" may have been made by some of the other people in the arrivals area.
When watching the scene in "The Abyss" when Lindsey Brigman tells the crew the alien craft "glided", am I the only one who yells "GLODE!" at the screen?
You think that most people know what linux is? Hell, I bet that most people don't even know what an operating system is.
Most people don't know what a computer is.
If you work in an office, where non-geeks work on (non-iMac) computers all day, try this little experiment. Choose an average-looking victim and ask "Could you please point to the computer you are using?"
You can see where I'm going with this, can't you? The person has three objects on top of the desk, and one underneath it, with a simple on-off switch. The mouse is used for pointing to things on the monitor screen, the keyboard for typing things on to the monitor screen. The monitor looks like a TV, which is a completely self-contained device. Most people will point to the monitor, and will refer to the computer as the "power box" or the "disk drive".
People in Mercka are ignorant, happy to remain ignorant and will actively fight to preserve their ignorance, because ignorance is soft, certain, simple and comfortable. Enter GWB.
"They would do better to put the money into smaller "airstrip" size carriers (UK HMS Invincible) instead of the "airfields" (USS Nimitz, etc) they have."
Or perhaps put the money into hiring spies. It's scary when you can buy a five billion dollar warship but your intelligence services are so poor you don't even know who you are fighting there!
Isn't there some way of making money on public stock if you think it's heavily overpriced?
Underpriced is obvious, you just have to buy it and wait.
I remember talking to a stockbroker once at a birthday party (not one of the swingingest parties I have ever attended you understand) just before the tech crash and he said buy "put options".
A little googling later, and I find this, this and this. I can't find any information on what happens to your put-options if the company goes totally titsup. Any (professional) stockbrokers in the Slashdot world can help me make a killing here?
Part of the intention of having 2 rovers is that they can assist each other. This should make it more difficult to get a rover irreversibly stuck by a rock (as happened last time).
Wrongo x 2. The rovers will be landing on completely different parts of the planet, one in a flood plain and one in a crater. They will never see each other. The last rover was stuck on a rock for two days because the controllers had to be damn sure that they didn't overturn it.
The point of two rovers is redundancy; if one fails, you always have the other. You square your chances of total failure. If it's a one in five chance of failure per rover, it's only a one in twenty five change of both rovers failing.
"A technologically adept adversary could take advantage of this fact and, say, feed false info into the system..."
Taking the opposite strategy let Australia defeat the US in wargames a few years ago.
Australia took the part of defenders of a large (anonymous) desert country, and the US the attackers from the sea. US plans included a lot of electronic surveillance. The Aussies passed commands using runners and pieces of paper, sent fake messages to each other implying that the most heavily defended area of beach was completely empty, and foiled the US landing.
The script said this wouldn't happen, so the referees allowed the game to continue as if the landing was successful.
...they laughed about the whole idea of nuclear war and the annihilation of a good chunk of the human population, they gave their maneuvers names like the "idiot loop" - but it was all humour, all to keep themselves sane.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't turn my mind around. I can't metaphorically sit beside people and laugh with them about how difficult it's going to be to kill millions of people. That is not sanity, that is a coping strategy permitting the maintenance of an insane delusion.
True evil is banal. Outside the Iraqi torture centres there was a day care centre where the torturers' children could be kept while daddy pulled people's nails out and ran electric shocks over their genitals. When they were done, they returned to pick up their children and go home to a nice meal with the family. I bet they also had some remarkable coping strategies to "keep them selves sane".
It is the hope of coming home alive that seperates a brave man willing to take an enormous risk from a deluded psychotic who is willing to detonate a bag of gunpowder and nails tied to his chest.
Your deluded psychotic is a brave man. Your brave man is a deluded psychotic. It all depends on the position of the observer.
A well-made weapon can be a beautiful thing. The barrel of a gun pointed at your face is invariably ugly.
Suicide bombers
on
Nuke-Lobbing
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What a cool article about American suicide bombers! I love suicide bombers. There's something so daring, heroic and tragic about them, don't you think?
What a great guy. He sure must have a lot of guts to be prepared to strap himself into a weapon of mass destruction and hurtle himself at the enemy like that, knowing that he was unlikely to come back alive. How dashing! How adventurous!
To bad there aren't enough people like that in the world today, willing to throw their lives away for a cause they believe in.
Yes, I know, there will always be the lefty naysayers who will complain about "thousands of innocent civilians dead" but this is wartime! You have to expect civilians to be killed (and sometimes even targetted) by suicide troops in the struggle for a greater glory.
[Note for our American readers: Please don your sarcasm-glasses, switch on your ironometers and re-read this post]
You're not targeting Sevastopol but the military airfield on the mainland beyond, to take out the MiG-15s that would otherwise intercept the big bombers of the Strategic Air Command.
Ah that's alright then. It's a military target. He's going to kill the soldiers who would try to prevent our boys from murdering millions of civilians.
I'm an old fart, I know, but I was idealistic in my youth, and tried negotiating my way through Galaga, Galaxians and Space Invaders. It's just doesn't work, they don't listen. The more you shoot, the more waves of suicide bombers attack you.
"Let's talk about our differences sensibly you guys. No! Wait! What are you shooting at me for? I'm just going to have to kill you! [blat][blat][blat] [POW] This slaughter cannot lead to anything good. Please, let's just sit down at the table and discuss our differences like normal, sane, NO! NO! [blat][blat][blat] [POW] Look what you made me do!"
"It's easier to get into something than to get out of it" - Rumsfeld
Why should a sentiment be trivialized just because the sender decided to use a statement that was prepared by another? Many people are either not verbally eloquent or lack the confidence to write in their own words. If a person agrees with what they send, shouldn't that be the determinant? We sign contracts we didn't write all the time. How is this any different?
I'm clearly dealing with either a simpleton or an ignoramus. If it's a simpleton, there's no hope, but if it's an ignoramus then hopefully some of that ignorance can be dispelled through reading the links in this message.
..NASA were surprised they didn't lose a single astronaut...
Apollo one suffered a flash fire on the launch pad killing all three of its crew.
Oops! May the spirits of Grissom, White and Chaffee[spel] haunt me fo rthe rest of my days for forgetting their contribution. Of course, I was blinded by the fact that nobody had been killed in space during that time.
Not true at all. Not meaning to get too political (says the guy whose pseudonym is an aggregate of the names of two political schools of thought) but how much is one Iraqui life worth these days? And I'm sure NASA were surprised they didn't lose a single astronaut during the development process which eventually landed a man on the moon.
For goodness sake, we can lose half a dozen lives building dams and bridges these days! What's the safety obsession all about? Post a sign-up sheet at NASA HQ for astronauts to explore Mars while willing to take a 20% chance of making it back alive, and you'll have more than a dozen signatures before the end of the day.
"Yes, thousands of... illegal aliens, who have no right being in this country in the first place."
But... we'll never know, will we, because the hearings checking to see if they are illegal are held in secret. Do you know what "justice must be seen to be done" actually means? Are these just words to you?
I didn't expect to get this sort of reply on Slashdot. I feel like I've turned over a rock and found my very own Lesser Spotted American Blinkered Bushbaby.
".. in the U.S. courts, in criminal trials, it's "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there wasn't enough evidence to rule in favour of guilt, then by law, he is innocent."
The judges (according the the Aftenpost article) went one step further than that and said there was "no evidence" to convict. This implies (to my untrained legal eye, which nonetheless is legally bound under pain of imprisonment to obey every single law in the land, every E.U. directive, and every libel law in Australia, because ignorance of the law is no excuse) that none of the evidence provided by the prosecution would lead the judges to convict Jon.
One small step forward for justice. That feels like such a hollow thing to say when thousands have disappeared from US streets to be held secretly (and legally) in internment camps.
Slashdot Mirror
Since last Wednesday, SCO has risen by about 40%.
Yes, if you worry about hour-to-hour stock prices. Taking a slightly longer view, SCO shares are now back to where they were on July 22nd.
That rant pushes the edge of legal.
"Bring it on!"
Dear SCO: I hereby declare that, whenever the opportunity arises during my professional career, and for the remainder of the time SCO is in operation as a solvent trading entity, I will attempt to damage your company in every legal manner I can devise.
# grep shined /usr/share/dict/words
shined
#
My wife and I were going through Dublin airport when I noticed that a number of the airport schedule display screens were going through a reboot sequence. I showed it to her : "Hey, looks like that one crashed."
She had to point out that a more alarming interpretation of the word "crashed" may have been made by some of the other people in the arrivals area.
When watching the scene in "The Abyss" when Lindsey Brigman tells the crew the alien craft "glided", am I the only one who yells "GLODE!" at the screen?
It's not really relevant whether the GPL is valid or not.
:P
Yes it is.
Arguments will be won by the poster with the lowest number.
So there
You think that most people know what linux is? Hell, I bet that most people don't even know what an operating system is.
Most people don't know what a computer is.
If you work in an office, where non-geeks work on (non-iMac) computers all day, try this little experiment. Choose an average-looking victim and ask "Could you please point to the computer you are using?"
You can see where I'm going with this, can't you? The person has three objects on top of the desk, and one underneath it, with a simple on-off switch. The mouse is used for pointing to things on the monitor screen, the keyboard for typing things on to the monitor screen. The monitor looks like a TV, which is a completely self-contained device. Most people will point to the monitor, and will refer to the computer as the "power box" or the "disk drive".
People in Mercka are ignorant, happy to remain ignorant and will actively fight to preserve their ignorance, because ignorance is soft, certain, simple and comfortable. Enter GWB.
"They would do better to put the money into smaller "airstrip" size carriers (UK HMS Invincible) instead of the "airfields" (USS Nimitz, etc) they have."
Or perhaps put the money into hiring spies. It's scary when you can buy a five billion dollar warship but your intelligence services are so poor you don't even know who you are fighting there!
Isn't there some way of making money on public stock if you think it's heavily overpriced?
Underpriced is obvious, you just have to buy it and wait.
I remember talking to a stockbroker once at a birthday party (not one of the swingingest parties I have ever attended you understand) just before the tech crash and he said buy "put options".
A little googling later, and I find this, this and this. I can't find any information on what happens to your put-options if the company goes totally titsup. Any (professional) stockbrokers in the Slashdot world can help me make a killing here?
Part of the intention of having 2 rovers is that they can assist each other. This should make it more difficult to get a rover irreversibly stuck by a rock (as happened last time).
Wrongo x 2. The rovers will be landing on completely different parts of the planet, one in a flood plain and one in a crater. They will never see each other. The last rover was stuck on a rock for two days because the controllers had to be damn sure that they didn't overturn it.
The point of two rovers is redundancy; if one fails, you always have the other. You square your chances of total failure. If it's a one in five chance of failure per rover, it's only a one in twenty five change of both rovers failing.
Guess the Iraqi military thought this would be a good approach as well.
No, I think the Iraqi approach was in the spirit of Spike Milligan: Americans shoot at Iraqi uniforms, therefore take them off!
"A technologically adept adversary could take advantage of this fact and, say, feed false info into the system..."
Taking the opposite strategy let Australia defeat the US in wargames a few years ago.
Australia took the part of defenders of a large (anonymous) desert country, and the US the attackers from the sea. US plans included a lot of electronic surveillance. The Aussies passed commands using runners and pieces of paper, sent fake messages to each other implying that the most heavily defended area of beach was completely empty, and foiled the US landing.
The script said this wouldn't happen, so the referees allowed the game to continue as if the landing was successful.
It's not rocket science or brain surgery - it's rocket surgery and brain science.
...and so does my wife!
...they laughed about the whole idea of nuclear war and the annihilation of a good chunk of the human population, they gave their maneuvers names like the "idiot loop" - but it was all humour, all to keep themselves sane.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't turn my mind around. I can't metaphorically sit beside people and laugh with them about how difficult it's going to be to kill millions of people. That is not sanity, that is a coping strategy permitting the maintenance of an insane delusion.
True evil is banal. Outside the Iraqi torture centres there was a day care centre where the torturers' children could be kept while daddy pulled people's nails out and ran electric shocks over their genitals. When they were done, they returned to pick up their children and go home to a nice meal with the family. I bet they also had some remarkable coping strategies to "keep them selves sane".
It is the hope of coming home alive that seperates a brave man willing to take an enormous risk from a deluded psychotic who is willing to detonate a bag of gunpowder and nails tied to his chest.
Your deluded psychotic is a brave man. Your brave man is a deluded psychotic. It all depends on the position of the observer.
A well-made weapon can be a beautiful thing. The barrel of a gun pointed at your face is invariably ugly.
What a cool article about American suicide bombers! I love suicide bombers. There's something so daring, heroic and tragic about them, don't you think?
What a great guy. He sure must have a lot of guts to be prepared to strap himself into a weapon of mass destruction and hurtle himself at the enemy like that, knowing that he was unlikely to come back alive. How dashing! How adventurous!
To bad there aren't enough people like that in the world today, willing to throw their lives away for a cause they believe in.
Yes, I know, there will always be the lefty naysayers who will complain about "thousands of innocent civilians dead" but this is wartime! You have to expect civilians to be killed (and sometimes even targetted) by suicide troops in the struggle for a greater glory.
[Note for our American readers: Please don your sarcasm-glasses, switch on your ironometers and re-read this post]
You're not targeting Sevastopol but the military airfield on the mainland beyond, to take out the MiG-15s that would otherwise intercept the big bombers of the Strategic Air Command.
Ah that's alright then. It's a military target. He's going to kill the soldiers who would try to prevent our boys from murdering millions of civilians.
I'm an old fart, I know, but I was idealistic in my youth, and tried negotiating my way through Galaga, Galaxians and Space Invaders. It's just doesn't work, they don't listen. The more you shoot, the more waves of suicide bombers attack you.
"Let's talk about our differences sensibly you guys. No! Wait! What are you shooting at me for? I'm just going to have to kill you! [blat][blat][blat] [POW] This slaughter cannot lead to anything good. Please, let's just sit down at the table and discuss our differences like normal, sane, NO! NO! [blat][blat][blat] [POW] Look what you made me do!"
"It's easier to get into something than to get out of it" - Rumsfeld
"You have no right to use the software because you did not enter into an agreement with them to use it."
I did not enter into an agreement with Sanyo to use my toaster either, does that mean I cannot use it?
Why should a sentiment be trivialized just because the sender decided to use a statement that was prepared by another? Many people are either not verbally eloquent or lack the confidence to write in their own words. If a person agrees with what they send, shouldn't that be the determinant? We sign contracts we didn't write all the time. How is this any different?
"...the iris is that black circle which lets light through in the front of the eye..."
No it's not. That is the pupil. The iris is the coloured part of the front of the eye surrounding the pupil.
"...Drawing directly to the retina requires a higher power laser..."
No it doesn't.
I'm clearly dealing with either a simpleton or an ignoramus. If it's a simpleton, there's no hope, but if it's an ignoramus then hopefully some of that ignorance can be dispelled through reading the links in this message.
"...I don't want a PDA until they can draw on my iris with lasers..."
I'd rather have one which draws onto my retina.
..NASA were surprised they didn't lose a single astronaut...
Apollo one suffered a flash fire on the launch pad killing all three of its crew.
Oops! May the spirits of Grissom, White and Chaffee[spel] haunt me fo rthe rest of my days for forgetting their contribution. Of course, I was blinded by the fact that nobody had been killed in space during that time.
Lives are priceless.
Not true at all. Not meaning to get too political (says the guy whose pseudonym is an aggregate of the names of two political schools of thought) but how much is one Iraqui life worth these days? And I'm sure NASA were surprised they didn't lose a single astronaut during the development process which eventually landed a man on the moon.
For goodness sake, we can lose half a dozen lives building dams and bridges these days! What's the safety obsession all about? Post a sign-up sheet at NASA HQ for astronauts to explore Mars while willing to take a 20% chance of making it back alive, and you'll have more than a dozen signatures before the end of the day.
"Yes, thousands of... illegal aliens, who have no right being in this country in the first place."
But... we'll never know, will we, because the hearings checking to see if they are illegal are held in secret. Do you know what "justice must be seen to be done" actually means? Are these just words to you?
I didn't expect to get this sort of reply on Slashdot. I feel like I've turned over a rock and found my very own Lesser Spotted American Blinkered Bushbaby.
".. in the U.S. courts, in criminal trials, it's "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there wasn't enough evidence to rule in favour of guilt, then by law, he is innocent."
The judges (according the the Aftenpost article) went one step further than that and said there was "no evidence" to convict. This implies (to my untrained legal eye, which nonetheless is legally bound under pain of imprisonment to obey every single law in the land, every E.U. directive, and every libel law in Australia, because ignorance of the law is no excuse) that none of the evidence provided by the prosecution would lead the judges to convict Jon.
One small step forward for justice. That feels like such a hollow thing to say when thousands have disappeared from US streets to be held secretly (and legally) in internment camps.