It isn't my place to say so, but you may wish to rethink that particular explanation. I certainly understand the reasons behind blocking certain sites, but sooner or later one of the kids is liable to figure out what's going on. What will you tell them if they confront you?
I forsee problems explaining Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy before we get anywhere near discussing questionable web sites. The operative phrase was "If I thought we had a problem..." - we don't have a problem yet, and I don't see one arising any time soon. I don't even have spare equipment to set up a transparent, filtering proxy.
Oh, I get nervous about people behind me, too. On the other hand, PC rooms in schools and local libraries are going to be like that, so they should get used to it early...
Our main PC is in our living room, so anyone using it sits with their back to the room. My kids have never had a problem with that, because it's always been that way. The younger two (12 & 11) are only just old enough to be thinking about email and spend most of their time playing games. Their older sister (20) has a laptop in her room, but only because she got a job and bought it for herself to take to college.
Having said that, if I thought we had a problem with inappropriate websites, for example, I'd put in a transparent proxy, check the logs from time to time, and block connections to really questionable sites. The younger kids would get "404 Not Found" and I'd blame the ISP... Same with filesharing, etc.
If you qualify for the job, they can't turn you down. If no citizens qualify for the job, they can apply to get a foreign worker at no less than 10% below the fair market rate for the job as specified in the original ad , the fair market rate being determined by the Dept of Labor.
If you, as a citizen, feel you are qualified, but were turned down in favor of a foreign worker, report them to the Dept of Labor. What have you got to lose? You don't have the job, and you probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway...
The thing is, when a company wants to hire a foreign worker, the Dept of Labor gets to scrutinise ALL the responses to the ad, and will not grant permission to bring in a foreign worker if they think a citizen is qualified for the posted job. The company doesn't get to switch the ad before getting an H1B.
I'm not saying they can't deliberately slant the ad to make it impossible for a citizen to qualify, but the foreign worker supposedly has to satisfy the same requirements as a citizen. So, speak up! Tell the Dept of Labor about all those companies who've given the $30/hr jobs you deserve to some poor unsuspecting immigrant for only $5/hr.
Yes, but unlike Central/Southen America and the Caribbean, Europe has a number of technologically equipped armies, with troops that fully understand their weapons, and several thousand years experience repelling invaders.
Well, except for France - they haven't successfully beaten off an invasion force in the last thousand years...
If someone truthfully answers a question when they *know* the answer will be interpreted incorrectly, have they committed perjury?
If the judge says so, yes. If you argue, you're in contempt. Keep on arguing and they drag you away - at least out of the room, if not to an actual cell.
Sure, you might later be able to win an appeal, but in the meantime, SCO paints you as a lying son-of-a-bitch, it gets in all the papers, and your reputation may never recover. Better to ask for clarification of any suspect terms in the context in which they are currently being used, calmly pointing out that previous usage appears to be at odds with the question now being asked.
The risk here is that RMS, Linus et al are going to be presented as hostile, subpoenaed witnesses, so their answers may be restricted to yes/no. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to ask much clarification. In their place, I'd sure like to keep notes as the questions are asked, but would the judge allow it?
Did Linus have anything to do with the IBM contract?
I imagine SCO want to put Linus on the stand so their lawyers can ask loaded questions that make it look like he supports software piracy.
Which brings to mind a question: suppose that Linus went off a couple of days ago for a 12 month sabbatical in the Australian Outback? If SCO's attack lawyers can't prove he knew about the subpoena, would he still be in contempt of court (or whatever) if he didn't show up?
IANAL, obviously - I'm just curious if someone can get in legal trouble for successfully avoiding the process server...
Here's a thought - if he's charging parking fees, is he then legally liable in any way if something happens to the probe? I.e is the probe automatically entitled to some kind of protection for as long as it's parked and the fees are paid?
Whichever court Mr Nemitx choose to pursue his claim in. Nasa can happily ignore him until he can find a judge who doesn't summarily dismiss his claim.
And even if Mr Nemitz finds a judge that will listen without laughing his ass off, NASA's reply is going to be, "You failed to plant claim markers in a timely fashion."
Alternatively, NASA can tell him, "We're innocent until you prove us guilty. So prove we're parked on your 'property'..."
Arguments will boil down to "but nothing says I can't, so, ha!"
So, how many shrinks does it take to get someone certified insane? If people like Nemitz irritate the gov't enough, they might just find themselves on the funny farm, along with several dozen Napoleons, etc. "Delusions of grandeur" should be a good start, if they really believe they have a galactic-level government. Possibly graduating to "terrorist" next time a large piece of rock falls out of the sky...
Are you telling me BableFish doesn't do Sanscrit? I'm assuming, of course, that SCO would recognise a translator if it bit them in the ass. That's probably a bad assumption, but then I'd had a couple of beers and I'm short on sleep...
...and have found it to be "snappier" and more responsive than any other OS I've used. Including other distros. Anyone have benchmarks on various distros?
OK, this isn't exactly an official benchmark, but I tried RedHat9 on my K6-2-450, full install. After installation, from hitting return in the gdm password box to KDE being ready to use took 1 minute and 35 seconds. With Gentoo installed from the pre-built GRP packages (i.e. not particularly optimised) the same PC did the same login-to-ready startup in 35 seconds.
This was not the very first login, either. In both cases I logged in a couple of times previous to the timed login. I even went back and reinstalled Redhat9 to make sure I hadn't bollixed the timing. It was still the same - 1minute 35seconds for Redhat, just 35seconds for Gentoo.
Oh, and I used the same kernel config to build a custom kernel in both distros, even the same partitions on the disk.
I mean really, how difficult can this be. Lots of people vote, you add up the totals, we're not talking rocket science here.
And there you have it, in a nutshell. It's not rocket science. It shouldn't be made into rocket science, either, especially when the rocket scientists in charge of the voting machines have declared interests in a particular political party.
There is absolutely no excuse for making vote-casting electronic. Give the people pencils or Sharpies and paper ballots, let them make their mark and then drop the paper into a box. It doesn't matter a damn to anyone that the vote isn't instantly available - Florida in 2000 being a prime example. It took many days to finally decide on the "official" count in Florida
Who gives a damn if it takes a couple of days to count the vote? You'd think after the Florida fiasco, the Administration would want to be absolutely sure that the people were convinced the election was honest. Of course, the wrong guy might get in, but hey, that's the risk you're supposed to take in politics...
Never mind being able to review the code. When you step up to the machine and start pressing buttons, how do you know that it's executing the code you reviewed? For that matter, how do you know it's not executing something else as well as the code you reviewed? And then there's the transmission path from the machine to the collator, not to mention the collator itself which, in Diebold's world, is an Access database with no password.
Bottom line is, it doesn't matter a damn if you review the code, if somewhere along the line some bent policitian or programmer can waltz in afterwards and rewrite the results.
I would think that wouldn't work so well when there's an outstanding counter-suit against you. Just because SCO backs off doesn't necessarily mean IBM will. Or does it?
Anyone care to bet on another anonymous mass purchase of SCO licenses?
In the case of "anonymous" license purchases, could IBM compel SCO to name the licensees? Or would that count as a "fishing expedition" and be disallowed? If not, any interested party with deep pockets could simply throw money at SCO...
OK, that answers a couple of questions I had - yes, it's possible for IBM to expose the real facts and (tactfully!) show the judge that SCO has been yanking his chain.
One other thing, though. If a lawyer does that, deliberately slanting yes/no questions for the purpose of character assassination, is he legally protected? Could ESR, for example, sue the lawyer personally for slander?
[SCO] went to enormous efforts to furnish the data in the least useful format possible
I'm surprised they didn't engrave it on stone tablets in Sanscrit. Maybe they just didn't have the time...
Reminds me of Patrick Moore, British astronomer - he used to fill out tax returns in perfectly legible, accurate Latin, because the forms didn't specify English...
The 3x3x2 is kinda fun. Works just like a regular cube with a slice missing, so it's not much of a challenge. Mine's decorated like dominos, with one white slice, one black slice, with faces numbered 1-9 in dots.
Another oddity is the dual 3x3x3. The two cubes share a column of 3 pieces, making it impossible to rotate around one axis.
I've got a couple of copies of a booklet published in 1980 called "Notes on Rubik's Magic Cube", by David Singmaster. In the middle of the booklet is a 9-step process for solving the cube from any position.
The rest of the book covers all kinds of mathematical group theory, as well as a lot of procedures for making pretty patterns. There's even a process that rotates top-center and front-center 90 degrees, making it fairly trivial to solve those picture face cubes.
Back then (1982? 1983?) I used to have a 4x4 cube too, but some bastard "borrowed" it and I never saw it again...
I used to know a guy that wouldn't let anyone bring a Rubik's Cube into his house. He said it was "because of the magical connotations". but I think it was because it didn't understand how to solve it.
Funny thing was, he had absolutely no problem with those big felt tip pens commonly known as magic markers.
What would happen if the backup for our commercial data, which is transmitted regularly over the Internet, instead was pushed to Belkin, due to this behavior?
Ummm, your backups are sent to a web-page?
I seriously doubt they're hijacking anything other than a connection via port 80, because anything else would be ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
The operative phrase was "if I thought we had a problem..." We don't, as yet, and I don't forsee one in the near future.
Oh, I get nervous about people behind me, too. On the other hand, PC rooms in schools and local libraries are going to be like that, so they should get used to it early...
Having said that, if I thought we had a problem with inappropriate websites, for example, I'd put in a transparent proxy, check the logs from time to time, and block connections to really questionable sites. The younger kids would get "404 Not Found" and I'd blame the ISP... Same with filesharing, etc.
If you, as a citizen, feel you are qualified, but were turned down in favor of a foreign worker, report them to the Dept of Labor. What have you got to lose? You don't have the job, and you probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway...
The thing is, when a company wants to hire a foreign worker, the Dept of Labor gets to scrutinise ALL the responses to the ad, and will not grant permission to bring in a foreign worker if they think a citizen is qualified for the posted job. The company doesn't get to switch the ad before getting an H1B.
I'm not saying they can't deliberately slant the ad to make it impossible for a citizen to qualify, but the foreign worker supposedly has to satisfy the same requirements as a citizen. So, speak up! Tell the Dept of Labor about all those companies who've given the $30/hr jobs you deserve to some poor unsuspecting immigrant for only $5/hr.
Well, except for France - they haven't successfully beaten off an invasion force in the last thousand years...
Sure, you might later be able to win an appeal, but in the meantime, SCO paints you as a lying son-of-a-bitch, it gets in all the papers, and your reputation may never recover. Better to ask for clarification of any suspect terms in the context in which they are currently being used, calmly pointing out that previous usage appears to be at odds with the question now being asked.
The risk here is that RMS, Linus et al are going to be presented as hostile, subpoenaed witnesses, so their answers may be restricted to yes/no. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed to ask much clarification. In their place, I'd sure like to keep notes as the questions are asked, but would the judge allow it?
Which brings to mind a question: suppose that Linus went off a couple of days ago for a 12 month sabbatical in the Australian Outback? If SCO's attack lawyers can't prove he knew about the subpoena, would he still be in contempt of court (or whatever) if he didn't show up?
IANAL, obviously - I'm just curious if someone can get in legal trouble for successfully avoiding the process server...
Here's a thought - if he's charging parking fees, is he then legally liable in any way if something happens to the probe? I.e is the probe automatically entitled to some kind of protection for as long as it's parked and the fees are paid?
And even if Mr Nemitz finds a judge that will listen without laughing his ass off, NASA's reply is going to be, "You failed to plant claim markers in a timely fashion."
Alternatively, NASA can tell him, "We're innocent until you prove us guilty. So prove we're parked on your 'property'..."
Kernel was probably 2.4.20, as this was a couple of months ago. Stock kernel source for RedHat, gentoo-sources for Gentoo.
Anyway, my other Linux boxes include an XP1900+/Radeon (at home) and a Sun E450 (quad Ultrasparc 400MHz) (at work).
Are you telling me BableFish doesn't do Sanscrit? I'm assuming, of course, that SCO would recognise a translator if it bit them in the ass. That's probably a bad assumption, but then I'd had a couple of beers and I'm short on sleep...
This was not the very first login, either. In both cases I logged in a couple of times previous to the timed login. I even went back and reinstalled Redhat9 to make sure I hadn't bollixed the timing. It was still the same - 1minute 35seconds for Redhat, just 35seconds for Gentoo.
Oh, and I used the same kernel config to build a custom kernel in both distros, even the same partitions on the disk.
There is absolutely no excuse for making vote-casting electronic. Give the people pencils or Sharpies and paper ballots, let them make their mark and then drop the paper into a box. It doesn't matter a damn to anyone that the vote isn't instantly available - Florida in 2000 being a prime example. It took many days to finally decide on the "official" count in Florida
Who gives a damn if it takes a couple of days to count the vote? You'd think after the Florida fiasco, the Administration would want to be absolutely sure that the people were convinced the election was honest. Of course, the wrong guy might get in, but hey, that's the risk you're supposed to take in politics...
I can't see why it should, but this is American law we're talking about, and all kinds of other weird shit happens...
Bottom line is, it doesn't matter a damn if you review the code, if somewhere along the line some bent policitian or programmer can waltz in afterwards and rewrite the results.
I would think that wouldn't work so well when there's an outstanding counter-suit against you. Just because SCO backs off doesn't necessarily mean IBM will. Or does it?
One other thing, though. If a lawyer does that, deliberately slanting yes/no questions for the purpose of character assassination, is he legally protected? Could ESR, for example, sue the lawyer personally for slander?
Reminds me of Patrick Moore, British astronomer - he used to fill out tax returns in perfectly legible, accurate Latin, because the forms didn't specify English...
Another oddity is the dual 3x3x3. The two cubes share a column of 3 pieces, making it impossible to rotate around one axis.
The rest of the book covers all kinds of mathematical group theory, as well as a lot of procedures for making pretty patterns. There's even a process that rotates top-center and front-center 90 degrees, making it fairly trivial to solve those picture face cubes.
Back then (1982? 1983?) I used to have a 4x4 cube too, but some bastard "borrowed" it and I never saw it again...
Funny thing was, he had absolutely no problem with those big felt tip pens commonly known as magic markers.
I seriously doubt they're hijacking anything other than a connection via port 80, because anything else would be ridiculous.
sendmail: HELO xyz.domain.com
belkin: <html><body>.....click here....</html>
sendmail: Huh?