Exhibit A: Employee at McDonald's wrapping up Big Macs wearing a huge gold necklace
It's like, hello dude, you're at work at mcdonalds no matter how long you save up to buy a huge gold chain it's not gonna fool anyone while you are flipping burgers you poor sheep...
Heh. He probably knows C++ and Java so don't rub it in, unless you're still living in dot-com bust denial. Working McDs is the perfect cover because very few shooters in the hood will go to a McDs outside of town and do a drive-by (and I don't mean Drive-thru). Just because you're living in C++ dreamland doesn't mean that everybody suddenly got lifted out of the projects and got a mansion in Beverley Hills. I suggest you watch the profoundly disturbing documentary American Babylon. The American dream is just that, a dream where you have to give in to oppressive working conditions and get fired at the drop of a hat.
Yes. But considering how many people still run unpatched IIs servers infected by Code Red.... Everybody with an unpatched zlib raise your hands;-)
Actually to be fair the last time I saw an NT4 box without SP6 was... about a couple of years ago so there's a lot of variance. If every popular app install e.g. latest Macromedia automatically overwrites the old buggy CLR with the latest one (like MFC libs).... Wow, that could be good, very few Java app installers automatically overwrite old JVMs.
I foresee in 2 years people on/. bithcin' about Macromedia FlashPlayer v7 requiring a DRM-compliant CLR. Then in 20 years developers will become so lazy with drag-n-drop coding that every app uses CLR, then Windows XP^2 will only allow CLR apps to run and they'll deprecate the entire Win32 API. L33t Fortran, C and assembler coders will be 90 years old so nobody will be able to use "dangerous" ByteArrays.
So this compiler lets you access Microsoft's proprietary.Net class libraries. A native code O'Caml compiler can access the hundreds of libraries written in C, on a range of platforms. What's the big deal?
You are correct. Micro$oft is constructing a Developers' Superstore - a familiar place where any developer of any language will go to code. Micro$oft is trying to achieve branding.
This is a tried and tested method, 50 years ago you went to the clothes store and bought some clothes, electrical store and bought some electricals, mechanical store and bought a washing machine, tool store and bought some tools.
Micro$oft is trying to construt a "Wal-Mart" that everybody goes to instead of all these disparate places. Not bad, appeals to beginners.
Right now a new developer says "I want to learn how to code" and you say, "Which platform? What type of program - textprocessing=Perl, compiler=Haskell, generalhighexecspeed=C++, generalhighdevelopmentspeed=Java, webdevelopment=PHP,J2EE,..." Micro$oft is trying to make it so that instead of all these disparate RPMs that confuse the heck out of newbie developers, you just use one IDE - Micro$oft's IDE, same as Wal-mart. The only difference (apart from the obvious) to a newbie will be that C++ has a compile button and Perl doesn't, his questions will become gradually more complicated after that. The weakness is that a bug in the CLR will affect all languages that use that functionality, you lose bug compartmentalisation and damage limitation.
I think you will find that corporations are far more answerable to customers and even small shareholders than governments are to voters
Trash. Shareholders have no say in the dealings of big corporations. It's the *institutional* shareholders e.g. 401k fund managers that hold the power over these companies, as they have the majority of shares, and all they want is short term profit for themselves at any cost so they can get $1million bonus and celebrate by buying $40,000 conoisseur wines with their Wall Street buddies. The institutional investors have these companies by the balls so even if (RI|MP)AA wants to be nice, they can't be.
Many institutional investors' equity holdings are so large that they have become permanent, long-term shareowners of major corporations. As a result, they have an economic interest in using corporate governance to improve performance. And as the size of their holdings has grown, institutional investors have rediscovered ownership rights. The idea of "voting with their feet"-simply selling shares when management's behavior disgusts them-has given way to the realization that taking an active role as an owner makes better economic sense
So there you go, big money follows the big money in a loop
You "vote" every time you do business with a company - or choose not to. McDonalds and Starbucks are popular because lots of people freely choose to spend their money there. If people decide en masse not to do business with McDonalds, there's nothing they can do, they'll simply go bankrupt
Idealism. Now institutional investors A, B, C invest total $1trillion in Rupert Murdoch and $1trillion in McDonalds. If Rupert Murdoch wants to publish a news article hurting McDonalds (e.g. Big Macs are radioactive), and institutional investor A finds out, he's gonna "scratch the back" of B and C by telling them their interests are going to be hurt, marshalling a force of the majority shareholders (institutional only) to tell Rupert Murdoch to shut up, otherwise they'll sell their shares in his companies. All this because A, B and C's investment in McDonalds would be damaged by the information leaking. The investors might even give Rupert Murdoch a finder's fee on-the-down-low well in excess of the news' ad revenues.
The liberal democrats gave us our first major attempt to censor the Internet (CDA). They even have as a major leader a deluded boob who claimed that he actually invented the Internet
Yeah, and I invented breathing the second I was born out of my Mother's womb. Think about it thousands of violations of my prior art every day.
You could always vote for Nader, who wants total government control and censorship of the Internet
*sigh* well if he's elected then someone on/. should volunteer to switch the Whitehouse routers to Win '95 so that we can tell him, "Nader, dude, the Internet doesn't work, so it doesn't need censorship."
Did you read the article you gave a link to. Must not have...
...Internal contradiction. They blew it in the quote you gave
I based my rant on the third source (commoncause.org) with some minor but dubious support from the other two because multiple sources gives a more balanced outlook and allow good replies (like yours Mr. AC). I'd rather be contradicted after giving a bigger picture than providing a small CNN-style soundbite that shows a biased viewpoint.
Taxing corporations isn't futile - that $40billion Micro$oft has isn't going into wages. Taxes actually encourage corporations to give the money in wages, as if the company keeps the money as profit by paying all employees $10,000 pa the corporation would have to pay so much tax that they might as well give it to the employees as salary, so they do.
For more details read this, what's that? Shall I quote it? Mmmmmmkay
the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 billion in total expenditures, or to the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)
You can mod me to troll for saying this, but at least this happened now when everybody *expects* a free Internet where their daughter can put up a website about ponies and can go into chat rooms and not get heavily censored China-style. Now that the majority of customers expect this product (the free Internet as it is today, just faster in broadband) if you take away this product you will seem totally stupid. What company no matter how big ever pulled their best-selling product? If this had happened a few years ago we'd all expect a padded room-censored Internet.
FCC - Pandora's box is already open, this is a pitiful attempt to close it. Next time I'll vote Democrat, trouble is I'm not in the US, but anyway they have my karma vote.
You "vote" every time you do business with a company - or choose not to. McDonalds and Starbucks are popular because lots of people freely choose to spend their money there. If people decide en masse not to do business with McDonalds, there's nothing they can do, they'll simply go bankrupt
Or they can change their name to McDonalds.com and get a $1billion VC funding, that way you don't need customers. What a brilliant idea.
... Or you haven't watched enough episodes of Total Recall 2070, Nagel: "We at Recall corporation are performing our own internal investigation. You cops are required to share any information you've found with us."
Alriiiiight at least the time-old philosophical question is going to be answered within 30 years - Is rule by a handful of megacorporations more or less oppressive than a Communist Government/Dictatorship?
I get the feeling the FCC ruling isn't that bad, it doesn't affect dial-ups status of Telco-rule-protected so people that *really* want freedom have that alternative. I now expect CDBPPTA to be shelved, there's no need for CDBPPTA compliant routers to replace the existing dumb packet forwarding Cisco/more advanced SONET infrastructure.
So you're saying that 30-40 percent of the UK population are racist willing to switch to the BNP?
No. Hague was exposed and many people saw through him and so didn't vote for him, a lot of people didn't see through him because they couldn't be arsed (the indifferrent majority which is a far cry from hardcore BNP members).
...opposition to the monarchy has historically always gotten its strongest support from the left, particularly socialists, communist, trotskyist and anarchist groups, but also to some extend from social democrats, and strongly opposed by the right, including many groups on the far right who see a republic as stepping on national symbols (the monarchy being one of them
...Looking to France, for instance, this is exactly what you see. The royalist organizations draw their support almost exclusively from the right.
Ahhh you are correct, puritan anarchists wouldn't mind powerless figureheads like royalty, however among their ranks there's a significant number of jealous rogues who oppose all hierarchical social/military structures including the affluent elite (cavemen anarchists) and it's always these "anarchists" that get interviewed by the BBC. These hate-anarchists are the real threat, and I think they are a new phenomenon...
I believe this differrent phenomenon has been resurrected from ages past, it's not confined by idealogical generalisations: it's the disenchanted masses - people on the wrong side of the ever widening rich-poor divide, creating massive resentment at the ruling elite (including figureheads) ala French aristocracy during the French revolution. This revolution in the UK has ironically been postponed by the September 11th attacks by re-igniting (perhaps temporarily) a sense of national community due to a collecive disgust of this event.
Exactly how are elected representatives symbols of oppression?
A choice between voting for Hague who was a xenophobic bastard, and Blair who is less of a bastard. Is this freedom?
After seeing the types of people turning up for anti-monarchy protests, and on Kilroy, it's pretty obvious to me that they're potential BNP material. Many anti-royalists are also xenophobic, if you read this uncensored forum, ahhh oops it's been taken down because under UK law the webmaster is liable for any hate speech posted on *his* website. Inciting hatred is an offence under the Riot Act.
It's not worth it, exactly because there are other problems (and mosques and racial minorities are certainly not something I consider a problem) that are more important, so I certainly don't buy the claim that she functions as a scapegoat
You can't look at this from your perspective only, are most anti-Royalists willing to switch over to the BNP? I put it to you yes. The Royals provide a more high profile target, and the profile of the target of peoples' hatred is important according to studies.
I put it to you that 1 year after the monarchy is abolished, the membership of the BNP would have doubled. Do you disagree with me on this point?
Thank You, if you had a/. account I'd friend you. You might as well get one, even if you post as AC they still know exactly who you are.
I remember somebody on/. linking to a story between Spetmber-January about that guy that posted pro-WTC attack stuff on indymedia.org and got pulled off a plane and interrogated by some guy in a suit who didn't show ID. And 'cos his wife's Palestinan his kids start crying having to wait while him and her get searched all the time. Might have been a link from a comment on/. some time ago.
I don't give a damn about the cost. But I do give a damn about the symbol of oppression that a monarch is.
You're totally missing the point. Tony Blair and Steven Byers are also figureheads of oppression. The fact is the monarchy pulls in so much American money and tourists that Britain will go bankrupt if they abolish it. This is why I support it. Obviously the Queen is a racist beeeea*ch (she was still eating when the Caribbean carnival went past I think this was deliberately timed).
The Queen also provides an excellent high profile scapegoat, if we got rid of her, the anti-monarchists would be happy - for 1 year and would then turn their attentions to other evils (in their opinion) in the UK such as oh I dunno mosques, racial minorities. The monarchy allows stupid people that hate people a central target. Of course some misinformed people have the false impression that she actually wields some power. Without her the British ancien regime would be truly in the shadows and completely uncontactable.
No person can have fun at a party, meeting or anything else when you realise somebody is lying to you about serious stuff that affects you, regardless of what country they come from. Like Total Recall 2070.
American news agencies perform self-censorship for conformity according to the wishes of the ancien regime of the day (industrial leaders, offensive military interests at this time). There are some that breach this such as the website that published Daniel Pearl's execution video - Ogrish (WARNING IF YOU CLICK THIS LINK AT WORK YOU'RE SCREWED, REGARD LINK AS PAEDOPHILE MATERIAL) but they were forced to take it down by the FBI. I never knew that putting an MPEG on your website was illegal. Interesting tactic of make everything illegal so that Feds and buddies can force you to do their dirty work by threatening to charge you with the 100 offences you committed just to wake up in the morning.
America created the extremists, probably deliberately so that they could invent "good colonialism" same as the British empire in their heyday claiming, "We are liberating these uncivilised people..." yada yada. The US media is amplifying the South Asian and Middle Eastern phenomenon of the "aggressive Mullah" which the US has its own equivalent of in its bible belt. If other countries were to judge the US by Utah then they'd blockade the US.
Whoa! Now *that* is what I call paranoia. I love it! AC I officially de-troll you. Although you did ruin the ending by saying "Google for the rest". Any succesful search on Google needs keywords you dumbass. Asking Google for "US naughty did bad stuff hate kill" won't bring up even half the information you mentioned.
Plus if the programmes you mention actually exist then surely it would be simple for the Feds to use SNMP vulnerabilities to hack into Google's edge routers and set up a stealth rule which will drop all SYN packets from Google's spiders to the websites containing the information you mentioned. Thus these websites won't be indexed in Google. A little paranoia is a bad thing.
Here's some food for thought - Communism's (Stalin style) worst enemy is education. Because Russia provided education (albeit biased) in the mainland and satellite states, they sowed the seeds for revolution. Without much education, their population would still today be largely agrarian, and the communists would still be in power albeit of a much less capable nation.
I'm not setting this in stone, it's just that when I drink tea that's too hot it goes to my head, heats upmy brain and starts me thinking, this is more of an RFC. Maybe I should click X instead of Submit, what do you think?
I think I speak for all Americans when I tell you to go fuck yourself.
Thanks, and HAND.
What's a HAND? Anyway, since you cannot argue properly please go to your local bar and start a bar fight./. is news for nerds and if you start bar fights or give dismissive IQ=5 comments like above then you have no place here. Well actually I don't mean that, your opinion's valuable nonetheless, especially more valuable than the trolls. I should adjust this comment so that it doesn't contradict itself, but ahhh that would be self-censorship so I won't do that.
As for what I said, here's some clarification:
Q: Do I believe WTC attack was good? A: No, of course not
Q: Do I believe binLaden could have waited until Saddam sold him 10 nukes so that he could nuke NY, Chicago, Washington, LA, etc. simultaneously? Do I believe such an attack is possible? A: binLaden could've waited and gotten nukes, then 10 US cities would be flattened cinders and 10% of the US population would be dead, instead of just WTC
Q: So was the WTC attack a preferable situation to 10 nukes after a couple of years? A: Now how can I say "Yes" without saying I was in favour of the WTC attacks? Hmmmmm...
Find a flaw in my logic and I'll listen. Otherwise you're just living in self-denial (Neo you should have taken the red pill not the blue one).
OMB is asked to consider if Microsoft should be required (as a matter of procurement policy) to fully disclose the file formats of its office productivity and multimedia programs
Geeks just don't get it. This isn't how the world works. If anybody actually *watched* Bill Gates when he was on the stand, you could see that he was grovelling to the Judge.
The Judge said, "You may have more money than me, but you don't have more power than me" and Bill said, "Yes" without seeming conceitful and then he started grovelling.
Because he handled himself properly, he won, it's not some DoJ or Bush conspiracy, everybody want stheir kudos and respect, same as you'd trust someone that talks nice in a $1000 suit over a shifty guy walking up to you at night in a dark alley in the projects.
They didn't let him off free, they broke him as a man. Bill Gates has a very short temper and you could see on his face that he was trying his best not to shout at the Judge, because he knew if he did he'd be found guilty. Bill Gates vs. DoJ and Bill Gates wins, but both parties are corrupt and nobody cares who's actually right, that's the tragedy.
I remember Steve Gibson complaining that Spinrite couldn't do it's job properly when drives started lying and doing internal sector translation, ECC, non-overrideable write-back cache (*extremely* dangerous for databases when HD ignores fsync() ), maybe it'll be good for all the high-level drive electronics functions to move back into software so that we can take back control of our data.
Re:Moving production to Asia?
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 2
If you give me a hand-out when I'm laid off and make it easier on me, you stifle my innovation and rob the world of the ideas I would think up when it's sink or swim and I've got to swim if I want to feed my kids.
Yeah a lot of people in the projects in the sink or swim situation come up with this great idea that if you go up to peope with a gun and ask them for money they'll give it to you. Such a simple business model, it's gotta work.
Re:So that means...
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Linux people are so unadventurous, put some *fun* into your lives, admit your secret desires, just as Michael Jordan gets excited at playing basketball, frantically dealing with read errors and sector not found errors by making an emergency backup injects spice into our lives, *feel* the adrenalin.
Sector and read failures are an integral part of the ATA standard and are passed via the HD controller as responses to failures. People have NO RIGHT to complain about these failures in 75gxp, the linux kernel and fs subsystems are even designed to handle these errors gracefully and not panic. Do you complain when Java <throws> an exception? No, you put some code in the catch(e){}; Instead of complaining, do something about it, ext2 and ext3 should be adjusted so that you can use,
ext2 make install --unreliableHD-12
where the use of this switch whilst compiling ext2 will automatically incorporate RAID5-on-a-drive-Reed-Solomon-type ECC in the fs module with an ability to handle a 12percent probability of sector failure per year. The fs source code will decide the Shannon's minimum ECC distance on this information and inline the appropriate strength of ECC to absorb these failures, these extra ECC blocks will be stored on different tracks because HDs have a distinct lack of spatial ECC making them vulnerable to head-scratch and cylinder-not-found errors(?).
So there, we can all use 75gxp now, if the drive's own IDE ECC can't handle read errors, then instead escalate and use the added ECC in the ext2fs subssytem or in the kernel to perform ECC. That way the paranoid among us can hedge their bets against read failures and sector not found failures. Obviously global drive malfunctions such as total drive electronics failure or total bearing failure won't be protected against. Heck WinRAR compression has this ECC feature built in, why can't a fs which is far more critical have it built in? Quit whining.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually to be fair the last time I saw an NT4 box without SP6 was... about a couple of years ago so there's a lot of variance. If every popular app install e.g. latest Macromedia automatically overwrites the old buggy CLR with the latest one (like MFC libs).... Wow, that could be good, very few Java app installers automatically overwrite old JVMs.
I foresee in 2 years people on /. bithcin' about Macromedia FlashPlayer v7 requiring a DRM-compliant CLR. Then in 20 years developers will become so lazy with drag-n-drop coding that every app uses CLR, then Windows XP^2 will only allow CLR apps to run and they'll deprecate the entire Win32 API. L33t Fortran, C and assembler coders will be 90 years old so nobody will be able to use "dangerous" ByteArrays.
This is a tried and tested method, 50 years ago you went to the clothes store and bought some clothes, electrical store and bought some electricals, mechanical store and bought a washing machine, tool store and bought some tools.
Micro$oft is trying to construt a "Wal-Mart" that everybody goes to instead of all these disparate places. Not bad, appeals to beginners.
Right now a new developer says "I want to learn how to code" and you say, "Which platform? What type of program - textprocessing=Perl, compiler=Haskell, generalhighexecspeed=C++, generalhighdevelopmentspeed=Java, webdevelopment=PHP,J2EE,..." Micro$oft is trying to make it so that instead of all these disparate RPMs that confuse the heck out of newbie developers, you just use one IDE - Micro$oft's IDE, same as Wal-mart. The only difference (apart from the obvious) to a newbie will be that C++ has a compile button and Perl doesn't, his questions will become gradually more complicated after that. The weakness is that a bug in the CLR will affect all languages that use that functionality, you lose bug compartmentalisation and damage limitation.
Read this article
So there you go, big money follows the big money in a loopIdealism. Now institutional investors A, B, C invest total $1trillion in Rupert Murdoch and $1trillion in McDonalds. If Rupert Murdoch wants to publish a news article hurting McDonalds (e.g. Big Macs are radioactive), and institutional investor A finds out, he's gonna "scratch the back" of B and C by telling them their interests are going to be hurt, marshalling a force of the majority shareholders (institutional only) to tell Rupert Murdoch to shut up, otherwise they'll sell their shares in his companies. All this because A, B and C's investment in McDonalds would be damaged by the information leaking. The investors might even give Rupert Murdoch a finder's fee on-the-down-low well in excess of the news' ad revenues.Taxing corporations isn't futile - that $40billion Micro$oft has isn't going into wages. Taxes actually encourage corporations to give the money in wages, as if the company keeps the money as profit by paying all employees $10,000 pa the corporation would have to pay so much tax that they might as well give it to the employees as salary, so they do.
For more details read this, what's that? Shall I quote it? Mmmmmmkay
So, since corporate welfare goes only to big corporations that means it's entirely possible (qualitatively) that their tax bill is zero.FCC - Pandora's box is already open, this is a pitiful attempt to close it. Next time I'll vote Democrat, trouble is I'm not in the US, but anyway they have my karma vote.
Oh wait...
Alriiiiight at least the time-old philosophical question is going to be answered within 30 years - Is rule by a handful of megacorporations more or less oppressive than a Communist Government/Dictatorship?
I get the feeling the FCC ruling isn't that bad, it doesn't affect dial-ups status of Telco-rule-protected so people that *really* want freedom have that alternative. I now expect CDBPPTA to be shelved, there's no need for CDBPPTA compliant routers to replace the existing dumb packet forwarding Cisco/more advanced SONET infrastructure.
I believe this differrent phenomenon has been resurrected from ages past, it's not confined by idealogical generalisations: it's the disenchanted masses - people on the wrong side of the ever widening rich-poor divide, creating massive resentment at the ruling elite (including figureheads) ala French aristocracy during the French revolution. This revolution in the UK has ironically been postponed by the September 11th attacks by re-igniting (perhaps temporarily) a sense of national community due to a collecive disgust of this event.
After seeing the types of people turning up for anti-monarchy protests, and on Kilroy, it's pretty obvious to me that they're potential BNP material. Many anti-royalists are also xenophobic, if you read this uncensored forum, ahhh oops it's been taken down because under UK law the webmaster is liable for any hate speech posted on *his* website. Inciting hatred is an offence under the Riot Act.
The BNP has almost unlimited resources to recruit as many racists as they like.
You can't look at this from your perspective only, are most anti-Royalists willing to switch over to the BNP? I put it to you yes. The Royals provide a more high profile target, and the profile of the target of peoples' hatred is important according to studies.I put it to you that 1 year after the monarchy is abolished, the membership of the BNP would have doubled. Do you disagree with me on this point?
I remember somebody on /. linking to a story between Spetmber-January about that guy that posted pro-WTC attack stuff on indymedia.org and got pulled off a plane and interrogated by some guy in a suit who didn't show ID. And 'cos his wife's Palestinan his kids start crying having to wait while him and her get searched all the time. Might have been a link from a comment on /. some time ago.
The Queen also provides an excellent high profile scapegoat, if we got rid of her, the anti-monarchists would be happy - for 1 year and would then turn their attentions to other evils (in their opinion) in the UK such as oh I dunno mosques, racial minorities. The monarchy allows stupid people that hate people a central target. Of course some misinformed people have the false impression that she actually wields some power. Without her the British ancien regime would be truly in the shadows and completely uncontactable.
American news agencies perform self-censorship for conformity according to the wishes of the ancien regime of the day (industrial leaders, offensive military interests at this time). There are some that breach this such as the website that published Daniel Pearl's execution video - Ogrish (WARNING IF YOU CLICK THIS LINK AT WORK YOU'RE SCREWED, REGARD LINK AS PAEDOPHILE MATERIAL) but they were forced to take it down by the FBI. I never knew that putting an MPEG on your website was illegal. Interesting tactic of make everything illegal so that Feds and buddies can force you to do their dirty work by threatening to charge you with the 100 offences you committed just to wake up in the morning.
America created the extremists, probably deliberately so that they could invent "good colonialism" same as the British empire in their heyday claiming, "We are liberating these uncivilised people..." yada yada. The US media is amplifying the South Asian and Middle Eastern phenomenon of the "aggressive Mullah" which the US has its own equivalent of in its bible belt. If other countries were to judge the US by Utah then they'd blockade the US.
Plus if the programmes you mention actually exist then surely it would be simple for the Feds to use SNMP vulnerabilities to hack into Google's edge routers and set up a stealth rule which will drop all SYN packets from Google's spiders to the websites containing the information you mentioned. Thus these websites won't be indexed in Google. A little paranoia is a bad thing.
I'm not setting this in stone, it's just that when I drink tea that's too hot it goes to my head, heats upmy brain and starts me thinking, this is more of an RFC. Maybe I should click X instead of Submit, what do you think?
Looks like the US Government agrees with me and has changed their policies to fingerprint people arriving from Arab nations.
As for what I said, here's some clarification:
Q: Do I believe WTC attack was good?
A: No, of course not
Q: Do I believe binLaden could have waited until Saddam sold him 10 nukes so that he could nuke NY, Chicago, Washington, LA, etc. simultaneously? Do I believe such an attack is possible?
A: binLaden could've waited and gotten nukes, then 10 US cities would be flattened cinders and 10% of the US population would be dead, instead of just WTC
Q: So was the WTC attack a preferable situation to 10 nukes after a couple of years?
A: Now how can I say "Yes" without saying I was in favour of the WTC attacks? Hmmmmm...
Find a flaw in my logic and I'll listen. Otherwise you're just living in self-denial (Neo you should have taken the red pill not the blue one).
The Judge said, "You may have more money than me, but you don't have more power than me" and Bill said, "Yes" without seeming conceitful and then he started grovelling.
Because he handled himself properly, he won, it's not some DoJ or Bush conspiracy, everybody want stheir kudos and respect, same as you'd trust someone that talks nice in a $1000 suit over a shifty guy walking up to you at night in a dark alley in the projects.
They didn't let him off free, they broke him as a man. Bill Gates has a very short temper and you could see on his face that he was trying his best not to shout at the Judge, because he knew if he did he'd be found guilty. Bill Gates vs. DoJ and Bill Gates wins, but both parties are corrupt and nobody cares who's actually right, that's the tragedy.
Aaaaaaaargh! Not one of those. I thought 3 retries was too many. Makes quad-burst ECC sound like some trashy buzzword.
I remember Steve Gibson complaining that Spinrite couldn't do it's job properly when drives started lying and doing internal sector translation, ECC, non-overrideable write-back cache (*extremely* dangerous for databases when HD ignores fsync() ), maybe it'll be good for all the high-level drive electronics functions to move back into software so that we can take back control of our data.
Sector and read failures are an integral part of the ATA standard and are passed via the HD controller as responses to failures. People have NO RIGHT to complain about these failures in 75gxp, the linux kernel and fs subsystems are even designed to handle these errors gracefully and not panic. Do you complain when Java <throws> an exception? No, you put some code in the catch(e){}; Instead of complaining, do something about it, ext2 and ext3 should be adjusted so that you can use,
ext2 make install --unreliableHD-12
where the use of this switch whilst compiling ext2 will automatically incorporate RAID5-on-a-drive-Reed-Solomon-type ECC in the fs module with an ability to handle a 12percent probability of sector failure per year. The fs source code will decide the Shannon's minimum ECC distance on this information and inline the appropriate strength of ECC to absorb these failures, these extra ECC blocks will be stored on different tracks because HDs have a distinct lack of spatial ECC making them vulnerable to head-scratch and cylinder-not-found errors(?).
So there, we can all use 75gxp now, if the drive's own IDE ECC can't handle read errors, then instead escalate and use the added ECC in the ext2fs subssytem or in the kernel to perform ECC. That way the paranoid among us can hedge their bets against read failures and sector not found failures. Obviously global drive malfunctions such as total drive electronics failure or total bearing failure won't be protected against. Heck WinRAR compression has this ECC feature built in, why can't a fs which is far more critical have it built in? Quit whining.