Two comments.. one, that species of frog has been shown to freeze in nature. It may be able to be frozen for the cold season, but long-term freezing is a much, much harder accomplishment.
1. "... That they deserve to go to jail." I never said jail, if you were familiar with the US legal system, you would know that most offenses do not result in jail time, nor a criminal record. They are taken care of very nicely with monetary fines or public service.
2. Technical solutions
If someone comes at me with a knife, I could have learned martial arts and disarmed him. Just because he didn't do me immediate harm does not make him innocent of an illegal act. In your mind, however, it would.
3. Existing law and mail filtration systems work fine I don't even know where you got this idea, I use filters but spam still gets through, and in most states there is no legal recourse.
Name-calling aside, there are "technical" solutions to rape, assault, theft, but all these are illegal, too. If I throw a brick for fun, and it hits someone in the head, I'm liable. Why wouldn't an accidental spammer be, too?
you are promoting lawlessness and vigilantism. Are you a libertarian?
I hardl think that a law against mass commercial mailings will destroy the Internet, it's not even a slippery slope away from infringing on free speech. And almost *all* laws are designed to protect the herds from each other: Why do you think there are laws against stealing and assault? Because people should not have to protect themselves against unfair aggression. Both of these laws should apply online, and spam violates both.
What you're proposing is basically a vigilante zone, a lawless land where only the powerful get by, and innocent people become instant victims. That's not the internet I want to be a part of.
If every spammer moved to another country, I'd be absolutely thrilled! The inconvenience alone would probably get them to change businesses. Plus, international spam is a lot easier to filter out.
The reality is that if there were strong laws aaginst spam, the amonut of spam would drop dramatically.
I usually don't reply to anonymous cowards, but this case I will.
This is not about freedom of speech. They aren't expressing their poltiical, religious, or personal views at all- they're sending electronic advertisements to people who most of the time do not want them. They have the right to speak, they even have the right to write those thoughts down. But they don't have the right to charge me money (bandwidth costs $$) to force me to listen to them.
This is *why* we need laws!
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't know why people think laws against spammers would be ineffective. Even a threat of legal/finacial action against them would be a huge deterrent in sending spam. Heck, if it reduced it 10% wouldn't it be worth it?
Of course, intelligent filters and the like are the best way to treat the symptoms, but they don't treat the problem.
This is a huge risk.
As any security administrator knows, more security breaches come from within a computer network than from without. Even if computers are locked in a computer room, what about the desktop machines? We currently use profiles to prevent people from installing unlicensed software. But with this exploit, that probably would not be very hard. This is a huge problem in Windows.
I'm glad to finally see this. One of the big benefits of TiVo and the like is that they can so much more closely moniter what demographics are watching which shows with more accuracy.
What this means for TV viewers is that the shows that people actually watch will more frequently stay on the air, and the commercials they show will be better suited. It's about time!
That's not the purpose for click-through software on free apps. The major reason is liability of the software on a computer. If I install LILO and it wipes out my hard drive, I can sue the writer of the software. Unless, of course, there is a legally binding agreement between me and the software company/programmer who made it that I cannot sue for damage done to my computer, etc.
Re:It's the medias right to post the story
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't contradict itself. You should always question credibility, but people usually assume that the author is telling the truth. We is the genreal populace in this statement, myself included.
It's the medias right to post the story
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 2
They cnap ut spin on it, of course. If people don't like it they won't read the paper. Credibility is always questionable; we assume newspapers (and other new-outlets) always tell the truth. If a person questions the honesty of the piece, they should do some research, and read articles from other sources. They'll pick the one that they like best.
Seems they's quarreling over how to interpret data. Pretty petty.
Hmm, after reading the actual usenet post again, he's not really making a bold statement. I still think it's a little ironic, but not in a hypocritical way. Just want that "on record":)
Considering that Linus is almost fanatical about needing to "break" backwards compatibility in the Linux kernel in order to develop it as fast as possible.
Now he's supporting a CPU scheme that, well, doesn't break anything and may even sacrifice performance for that compatibility.
Changes the dynamic of the business
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I like this idea, but because it will hurt business, it'll go away.
Of course, "fair use" states that you can lend, borrow, and sell used merchandise (CDs, PS2 games, etc) but when it's on such a large scale, businesses will fight back to try to make up for lost sales. If it stays limited to older nintendo and sega ROMs, they might slip under the radar... but I don't know anymore.
What's your user name again? CmdrTaco?
on
Sysadmin Day. Yay.
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Hmm..
*clickity click*
You've got plenty of disk space, now...
Happy BOFH day!
If you're referring to any of the following "proof" that the landings didn't take place, then you need to do some real research: 1. There was no crater under the lander. 2. The shadows should have been completely dark. 3. There are no stars in the night sky. 4. You can see the letter "N" (or something) on a "prop" rock. 5. You can see a reflection of a video camera, or an incorrect reflection (3rd spaceman, etc) in a visor. All of these "proofs" have been easily disproven. I'll enumerate: 1. There will never be one, they approached the moon at several feet/sec. Do you hit the parking space at 100MPH? 2. Simple physics: Light reflects. There are no truly dark shadows anywhere there is a light source that can reflect. 3. The cameras were set to very fast exposure due to the extreme brightness so the stars did not have time to expose the film. (In addition, I beelive that there are stars in some of the real NASA pictures.) 4. This is a scratch in the film; the real photo does not have this (or other imperfections that have been added by bad photocopies). 5. I won't go into detail on all of them, but the imfamous "3rd spaceman" is actually an editied picture: again, it is not present in the originals. Go to the webpage previously referenced, it explains everything in detail.
Ok, so they supposedly reverse engineered the MS protocol, then? It surely sounds like they did. The article says they are offering the client source immediately, and then the server source in a few months. Maybe they're waiting to deal with MS first.
Re:Excellent! Now I have something to do at work :
on
Perl 5.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
The monstrosities, of course. I've battled with them many times. We actually have a procedure now for both 11.0 and 10.20, butit took literally days upon days of fact-finding and experimentation to get it to work at all.
Excellent! Now I have something to do at work :)
on
Perl 5.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I assume that the source only is released so far. Time to start porting it to HPUX! I wonder if this will fix problems with Oraperl on HPUX 10.20... probably not.
I'd like to take issue with your statements: 1. Commercial software companies don't understand dynamic linking. This statement might be correct in a few cases, but Linux does *not* provide a better development model than windows. The simple fact is that you can statically or dynamically link in *both* windows *and* linux. And ask anyone who's tried to update their libraries in Linux if it's easier than doing so in Windows. 2. Unix Filesystem So, we've got files in, say the/opt directory. The config files are in/etc, maybe adding some lbiraries to/usr/lib, probably setting up some symbolic links in/usr/local/bin. For the most part Unix-style distributions keep everything in one directory, but so do most Windows apps. As for a guarantee that a program "relocated" will or won't work on two systems, the same thing can be said for Linux/Unix. 3. Illegal cartel I don't know where you're getting this, but you might as well claim that Steven King killed JFK. It's an unfouned conspiracy theory at best, slander at worst. And since when is OPEC or De Beers illegal? Or UL fo that matter?
Your main point is that prorpiatary software developers are incompetent. You use some... interesting justification. Just because there is so much more sofwtare for Windows doesn't mean that there is more bad siftware, but there us *plenty* of bad software (open source, free and closed) for Linux.
While your rhetoric sounds nice to a well-educated linux guru, it hold one major flaw: it assumes all Linux users know how to download, compile, and install all their own software.
Personally I run Slackware and compile almost everything I use. However, in a family of 5 that owns 4 computers, I'm the only know who even has a clue, or who wants to have a clue. So yous claims that packaging everything as.tar as being "vastly more desireable" ignores the fact that most people can't use sofwtare in that format.
You seem to be from the camp that says "If you're too stupid to use Linux, then don't bother." I'm from the camp that says "Linux is good for everyone if efforts aer made to bring it to the general public." That's the difference of opinion, it seems to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, a real erason for someone with a Windows machine (or Linux for that matter) to have a firewall...
Two comments.. one, that species of frog has been shown to freeze in nature. It may be able to be frozen for the cold season, but long-term freezing is a much, much harder accomplishment.
1. "... That they deserve to go to jail."
I never said jail, if you were familiar with the US legal system, you would know that most offenses do not result in jail time, nor a criminal record. They are taken care of very nicely with monetary fines or public service.
2. Technical solutions
If someone comes at me with a knife, I could have learned martial arts and disarmed him. Just because he didn't do me immediate harm does not make him innocent of an illegal act. In your mind, however, it would.
3. Existing law and mail filtration systems work fine
I don't even know where you got this idea, I use filters but spam still gets through, and in most states there is no legal recourse.
Name-calling aside, there are "technical" solutions to rape, assault, theft, but all these are illegal, too. If I throw a brick for fun, and it hits someone in the head, I'm liable. Why wouldn't an accidental spammer be, too?
you are promoting lawlessness and vigilantism. Are you a libertarian?
I hardl think that a law against mass commercial mailings will destroy the Internet, it's not even a slippery slope away from infringing on free speech. And almost *all* laws are designed to protect the herds from each other: Why do you think there are laws against stealing and assault? Because people should not have to protect themselves against unfair aggression. Both of these laws should apply online, and spam violates both.
What you're proposing is basically a vigilante zone, a lawless land where only the powerful get by, and innocent people become instant victims. That's not the internet I want to be a part of.
If every spammer moved to another country, I'd be absolutely thrilled! The inconvenience alone would probably get them to change businesses. Plus, international spam is a lot easier to filter out.
The reality is that if there were strong laws aaginst spam, the amonut of spam would drop dramatically.
I usually don't reply to anonymous cowards, but this case I will.
This is not about freedom of speech. They aren't expressing their poltiical, religious, or personal views at all- they're sending electronic advertisements to people who most of the time do not want them. They have the right to speak, they even have the right to write those thoughts down. But they don't have the right to charge me money (bandwidth costs $$) to force me to listen to them.
I don't know why people think laws against spammers would be ineffective. Even a threat of legal/finacial action against them would be a huge deterrent in sending spam. Heck, if it reduced it 10% wouldn't it be worth it?
Of course, intelligent filters and the like are the best way to treat the symptoms, but they don't treat the problem.
This is a huge risk. As any security administrator knows, more security breaches come from within a computer network than from without. Even if computers are locked in a computer room, what about the desktop machines? We currently use profiles to prevent people from installing unlicensed software. But with this exploit, that probably would not be very hard. This is a huge problem in Windows.
Does it even need to be said?
I'm glad to finally see this. One of the big benefits of TiVo and the like is that they can so much more closely moniter what demographics are watching which shows with more accuracy.
What this means for TV viewers is that the shows that people actually watch will more frequently stay on the air, and the commercials they show will be better suited. It's about time!
That's not the purpose for click-through software on free apps. The major reason is liability of the software on a computer. If I install LILO and it wipes out my hard drive, I can sue the writer of the software. Unless, of course, there is a legally binding agreement between me and the software company/programmer who made it that I cannot sue for damage done to my computer, etc.
It doesn't contradict itself. You should always question credibility, but people usually assume that the author is telling the truth. We is the genreal populace in this statement, myself included.
They cnap ut spin on it, of course. If people don't like it they won't read the paper. Credibility is always questionable; we assume newspapers (and other new-outlets) always tell the truth. If a person questions the honesty of the piece, they should do some research, and read articles from other sources. They'll pick the one that they like best.
Seems they's quarreling over how to interpret data. Pretty petty.
Hmm, after reading the actual usenet post again, he's not really making a bold statement. I still think it's a little ironic, but not in a hypocritical way. Just want that "on record" :)
Considering that Linus is almost fanatical about needing to "break" backwards compatibility in the Linux kernel in order to develop it as fast as possible.
Now he's supporting a CPU scheme that, well, doesn't break anything and may even sacrifice performance for that compatibility.
I like this idea, but because it will hurt business, it'll go away.
Of course, "fair use" states that you can lend, borrow, and sell used merchandise (CDs, PS2 games, etc) but when it's on such a large scale, businesses will fight back to try to make up for lost sales. If it stays limited to older nintendo and sega ROMs, they might slip under the radar... but I don't know anymore.
Hmm.. *clickity click* You've got plenty of disk space, now... Happy BOFH day!
If you're referring to any of the following "proof" that the landings didn't take place, then you need to do some real research:
1. There was no crater under the lander.
2. The shadows should have been completely dark.
3. There are no stars in the night sky.
4. You can see the letter "N" (or something) on a "prop" rock.
5. You can see a reflection of a video camera, or an incorrect reflection (3rd spaceman, etc) in a visor.
All of these "proofs" have been easily disproven. I'll enumerate:
1. There will never be one, they approached the moon at several feet/sec. Do you hit the parking space at 100MPH?
2. Simple physics: Light reflects. There are no truly dark shadows anywhere there is a light source that can reflect.
3. The cameras were set to very fast exposure due to the extreme brightness so the stars did not have time to expose the film. (In addition, I beelive that there are stars in some of the real NASA pictures.)
4. This is a scratch in the film; the real photo does not have this (or other imperfections that have been added by bad photocopies).
5. I won't go into detail on all of them, but the imfamous "3rd spaceman" is actually an editied picture: again, it is not present in the originals.
Go to the webpage previously referenced, it explains everything in detail.
Ok, so they supposedly reverse engineered the MS protocol, then? It surely sounds like they did. The article says they are offering the client source immediately, and then the server source in a few months. Maybe they're waiting to deal with MS first.
The monstrosities, of course. I've battled with them many times. We actually have a procedure now for both 11.0 and 10.20, butit took literally days upon days of fact-finding and experimentation to get it to work at all.
I assume that the source only is released so far. Time to start porting it to HPUX! I wonder if this will fix problems with Oraperl on HPUX 10.20... probably not.
Where every post is going to be modded "flaimbait" or "troll" lol
I'd like to take issue with your statements: /opt directory. The config files are in /etc, maybe adding some lbiraries to /usr/lib, probably setting up some symbolic links in /usr/local/bin. For the most part Unix-style distributions keep everything in one directory, but so do most Windows apps.
1. Commercial software companies don't understand dynamic linking.
This statement might be correct in a few cases, but Linux does *not* provide a better development model than windows. The simple fact is that you can statically or dynamically link in *both* windows *and* linux. And ask anyone who's tried to update their libraries in Linux if it's easier than doing so in Windows.
2. Unix Filesystem
So, we've got files in, say the
As for a guarantee that a program "relocated" will or won't work on two systems, the same thing can be said for Linux/Unix.
3. Illegal cartel
I don't know where you're getting this, but you might as well claim that Steven King killed JFK. It's an unfouned conspiracy theory at best, slander at worst. And since when is OPEC or De Beers illegal? Or UL fo that matter?
Your main point is that prorpiatary software developers are incompetent. You use some... interesting justification. Just because there is so much more sofwtare for Windows doesn't mean that there is more bad siftware, but there us *plenty* of bad software (open source, free and closed) for Linux.
While your rhetoric sounds nice to a well-educated linux guru, it hold one major flaw: it assumes all Linux users know how to download, compile, and install all their own software.
.tar as being "vastly more desireable" ignores the fact that most people can't use sofwtare in that format.
Personally I run Slackware and compile almost everything I use. However, in a family of 5 that owns 4 computers, I'm the only know who even has a clue, or who wants to have a clue. So yous claims that packaging everything as
You seem to be from the camp that says "If you're too stupid to use Linux, then don't bother." I'm from the camp that says "Linux is good for everyone if efforts aer made to bring it to the general public." That's the difference of opinion, it seems to me.