You have a virtually 0 risk of getting shot in the majority of London, and if there is any report of a gun the police will shut down the area and lay seige, for days if they have to, to produce a peaceful outcome. Non of your gun battles in the streets of toe to toe wild west style shoot outs. The only people likely to actually kill anyone are the swat guys with training, body armour and rifles.
If you get mugged, then you get some bruises, and deprived of your money, but its still better than someone getting killed even if it is the criminal.
Banning guns has a major effect on gun crime, because criminals usually get their guns by stealing them off people who buy them legally. Therefore, if less people owned guns there would be less guns for criminals to steal and then criminal would have fewer guns and there would be less shootings. How many law abiding citizens who have guns have ever actually used their gun to protect themselves, and how many are actually killed by their own weapon? The presence of any weapon in a tense situation simply acts to turn a bad situation into a lethal one, raising the stakes so that someone will be going home in a body bag. Is protecting property really worth someone dying? I don't think it is.
The bastards used their domain admin rights to browse my PC because they found some weird stuff on a share (like my MP3's, I'd only shared them to myself but still) oh and proof of concept exploit code for the recent lsass vulnerability. Anyway, they had my boss come round and told me to remove firefox while he watched, and who knows when those evil dumbasses will try to spy on me again. I might try again in a couple of months when the heat has worn off a bit.
I've just been forced back onto IE by my crack snorting corporate admin monkeys (I hope they're not spying on this) and I really miss tabs. In firefox I could open a site like the register, middle click on as many stories as I liked, knowing that they would all be loaded in the background without stealing focus. In IE if I say, "open in new window" it takes comparitively ages to actually open the new window, and then it makes the new window the active one.
I'm currently trying to pursade my employer to roll out firefox to all users, but I expect that the dumbass network admin types will reject it on the grounds that the corporate intranet would need upgrading to use W3C standards!!
slower, because of increased latency. Also memory timings usually have to be decreased in order to maintain signal integrity over the longer distance and through the first bank of RAM to reach the second, and that assumes that the 4 sticks are on a dual channel system. If you only have a single channel then many boards will really struggle to maintain good signal integrity to 4 banks of RAM at fast timings, or even at DDR400.
you said that the poster was riled therfore it must have been the truth, but you've just replied that slander also riles contradicting your original post. I was not coming down on either side of the argument since I have no idea who Peter Jennings is. I was simply pointing out the falacy of your argument.
Soooo... you contend that only the truth riles, whereas slanderous lies and misinformation passed off as truth is OK. The problem is that in a public forum where no point of view has more weight or comes with better providence than another, people have no way to seperate fact from clever fiction.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
The problem is, and IANAL but my brother is, and this is what he tells me, that under the US constitution only the government can violate your rights, not private individuals or corporations. Therefore having a right to privacy, or anything else for that matter doesn't help you very much against your ISP or even telco.
I've just realised something though. Technically every email you write is copyrighted to you, and therefore your ISP storing it or archiving it is a breach of copyright. Anyone got a view on that?
I don't think there is anything which makes microsoft software "inherently" more insecure. Given enough time and effort microsoft products, like any piece of software has the potential to be bullet proof. Of course thats a practical impossibility as much for microsoft as for apache or linux. The problem for microsoft is that a very large number of its users are not installing patches, and that for microsoft releasing a patch is a big deal. They have QA issues to deal with so that patches must be tested properly before release, which OSS doesn't really have. The big problem that microsoft has though really is its user base. They've made it too easy for anyone to set up a web server or get online, so there is no knowledge based barrier to entry. That is, dumbasses can get on the net.
In order for linux to get more popular it'd have to be MUCH easier to use, and then you'd still have the problem of dumb users who never upgrade, but on linux.
WTL is a set of template classes from microsoft that make it easy to implement fairly complicated GUIs. A lot like MFC, but simple, lightweight, and templated.
It's available under the Common Public Licence and is hosted on sourceforge here
Yes, a friend of mine who has always developed on emacs under *nix before his current job now uses visual studio for almost everything, including maintaining tcl/tk
A corporation has no obligation to its shareholders not to break law. It's only obligation is to make money and try not to get caught breaking the law (because that costs money).
OK AC troll, just a quick thing. Visual Studio is not only not useless, it is quite possibly the greatest IDE ever created. If that were not so then why would so many GPL'd IDE's try to emulate it and why is it the preferred build enviroment for so many windows versions of GPL apps like mozilla?
You appear to be confused. Your course of action will not win you the game.
The parallels between the current ocupation of Iraq and the British occupation of Iraq in 1917 are quite astounding. We too invaded and captured Baghdad proclaiming that we were liberators. Not long after we set up a puppet government while a British politician in charge overall, and then we withdrew under pressure from a popular uprising leaving an unpopular king. During that time we bomber women and children with the fledgling RAF, and at the order of Winston Churchill, then secretary of war, gassed the kurds. We also had similar experiences in Afganistan. You are repeating all the mistakes we made, and they eventually led to the destruction of the British Empire. Personally I think you will not win this war on terror. You may not loose decisively, but in many ways that would be a victory for Bin Laden.
And you have just become the perfect demonstration of what is wrong with America today.
On one hand you claim to be always working for right, democracy and freedom for all opressed people. A beacon of fairness and justice that all nations should seek to emulate. On the other hand we have you comments, and those of your leaders which are based on moral relativism rather than the strongly help principles you proclaim (in case you're too dumb, that mean that you think the fact that the other guy might have been worse justifies your actions). You condemn torture and the killing of civilians, yet shed no tear when you carry them out yourselves. You condemn Saddam for torture and murder, yet your actions are not whiter than white, just a slightly different shade of gray. If you plan to pursue a moral crusade, as this clearly is, you MUST be whiter than white. To stick to your values even if they harm you in the short term. A failure to do so merely damages your own long term reputation and safety.
Slashdot Mirror
quite right, and because the government has nukes, then the armed militia who wants to overthrow a tyranical government needs nukes too.
If I had my way cheating at a computer game, especially multiplayer games, would get you castrated.
You have a virtually 0 risk of getting shot in the majority of London, and if there is any report of a gun the police will shut down the area and lay seige, for days if they have to, to produce a peaceful outcome. Non of your gun battles in the streets of toe to toe wild west style shoot outs. The only people likely to actually kill anyone are the swat guys with training, body armour and rifles.
If you get mugged, then you get some bruises, and deprived of your money, but its still better than someone getting killed even if it is the criminal.
Banning guns has a major effect on gun crime, because criminals usually get their guns by stealing them off people who buy them legally. Therefore, if less people owned guns there would be less guns for criminals to steal and then criminal would have fewer guns and there would be less shootings. How many law abiding citizens who have guns have ever actually used their gun to protect themselves, and how many are actually killed by their own weapon? The presence of any weapon in a tense situation simply acts to turn a bad situation into a lethal one, raising the stakes so that someone will be going home in a body bag. Is protecting property really worth someone dying? I don't think it is.
The bastards used their domain admin rights to browse my PC because they found some weird stuff on a share (like my MP3's, I'd only shared them to myself but still) oh and proof of concept exploit code for the recent lsass vulnerability. Anyway, they had my boss come round and told me to remove firefox while he watched, and who knows when those evil dumbasses will try to spy on me again. I might try again in a couple of months when the heat has worn off a bit.
I've just been forced back onto IE by my crack snorting corporate admin monkeys (I hope they're not spying on this) and I really miss tabs. In firefox I could open a site like the register, middle click on as many stories as I liked, knowing that they would all be loaded in the background without stealing focus. In IE if I say, "open in new window" it takes comparitively ages to actually open the new window, and then it makes the new window the active one.
I'm currently trying to pursade my employer to roll out firefox to all users, but I expect that the dumbass network admin types will reject it on the grounds that the corporate intranet would need upgrading to use W3C standards!!
no, but you can write a simple app to modify the registry to re-enable reg tools.
slower, because of increased latency. Also memory timings usually have to be decreased in order to maintain signal integrity over the longer distance and through the first bank of RAM to reach the second, and that assumes that the 4 sticks are on a dual channel system. If you only have a single channel then many boards will really struggle to maintain good signal integrity to 4 banks of RAM at fast timings, or even at DDR400.
you said that the poster was riled therfore it must have been the truth, but you've just replied that slander also riles contradicting your original post. I was not coming down on either side of the argument since I have no idea who Peter Jennings is. I was simply pointing out the falacy of your argument.
Soooo... you contend that only the truth riles, whereas slanderous lies and misinformation passed off as truth is OK. The problem is that in a public forum where no point of view has more weight or comes with better providence than another, people have no way to seperate fact from clever fiction.
bugger, I should have read down a bit before I replied with that.
Dupe!!
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
I can't be bothered to actually write a good flame, full of wit and rapier like insight, but if you'd like to imagine that I had, that would be great.
Thanks.
ahem, Oxen.
Besides, it's in the dictionary
The problem is, and IANAL but my brother is, and this is what he tells me, that under the US constitution only the government can violate your rights, not private individuals or corporations. Therefore having a right to privacy, or anything else for that matter doesn't help you very much against your ISP or even telco.
I've just realised something though. Technically every email you write is copyrighted to you, and therefore your ISP storing it or archiving it is a breach of copyright. Anyone got a view on that?
I don't think there is anything which makes microsoft software "inherently" more insecure. Given enough time and effort microsoft products, like any piece of software has the potential to be bullet proof. Of course thats a practical impossibility as much for microsoft as for apache or linux. The problem for microsoft is that a very large number of its users are not installing patches, and that for microsoft releasing a patch is a big deal. They have QA issues to deal with so that patches must be tested properly before release, which OSS doesn't really have. The big problem that microsoft has though really is its user base. They've made it too easy for anyone to set up a web server or get online, so there is no knowledge based barrier to entry. That is, dumbasses can get on the net.
In order for linux to get more popular it'd have to be MUCH easier to use, and then you'd still have the problem of dumb users who never upgrade, but on linux.
WTL is a set of template classes from microsoft that make it easy to implement fairly complicated GUIs. A lot like MFC, but simple, lightweight, and templated.
It's available under the Common Public Licence and is hosted on sourceforge here
Yes, a friend of mine who has always developed on emacs under *nix before his current job now uses visual studio for almost everything, including maintaining tcl/tk
do you mean WTL? WTL is great!!!
A corporation has no obligation to its shareholders not to break law. It's only obligation is to make money and try not to get caught breaking the law (because that costs money).
OK AC troll, just a quick thing. Visual Studio is not only not useless, it is quite possibly the greatest IDE ever created. If that were not so then why would so many GPL'd IDE's try to emulate it and why is it the preferred build enviroment for so many windows versions of GPL apps like mozilla?
yes, for example, how I have an education, a sense of justice and fair play, and how I get to see more of what your country does abroad than you do.
You appear to be confused. Your course of action will not win you the game.
The parallels between the current ocupation of Iraq and the British occupation of Iraq in 1917 are quite astounding. We too invaded and captured Baghdad proclaiming that we were liberators. Not long after we set up a puppet government while a British politician in charge overall, and then we withdrew under pressure from a popular uprising leaving an unpopular king. During that time we bomber women and children with the fledgling RAF, and at the order of Winston Churchill, then secretary of war, gassed the kurds. We also had similar experiences in Afganistan. You are repeating all the mistakes we made, and they eventually led to the destruction of the British Empire. Personally I think you will not win this war on terror. You may not loose decisively, but in many ways that would be a victory for Bin Laden.
And you have just become the perfect demonstration of what is wrong with America today.
On one hand you claim to be always working for right, democracy and freedom for all opressed people. A beacon of fairness and justice that all nations should seek to emulate. On the other hand we have you comments, and those of your leaders which are based on moral relativism rather than the strongly help principles you proclaim (in case you're too dumb, that mean that you think the fact that the other guy might have been worse justifies your actions). You condemn torture and the killing of civilians, yet shed no tear when you carry them out yourselves. You condemn Saddam for torture and murder, yet your actions are not whiter than white, just a slightly different shade of gray. If you plan to pursue a moral crusade, as this clearly is, you MUST be whiter than white. To stick to your values even if they harm you in the short term. A failure to do so merely damages your own long term reputation and safety.
Yes, just read Joels Sim City anecdote for examples of hidden modes in windows.