Best of all we don't have one of those stupid "you have the right to protect yourself clauses" which came about when farmers had to keep guns around to keep their black slaves in line. US Constitution = Long live the 18th century!
Well, at least get your foreign history straight. The guns weren't used on slaves, they were used to evict the Brits -- twice. That's why the 2nd amendment is in place (and the 3rd) -- in case the Brits invade us again.:)
I assume that's sarcasm. My doctor did retire early, as in retire from medicine not from working, because of the cost of the malpractice insurance he'd never used. He no longer wanted to constantly raise his prices to patients who often couldn't afford what they were already being charged. So, he and the other three people in the office lost their jobs. I lost a really good, caring doctor. Sneer if you want.
Obviously you either didn't read what I said or you just ignored it.
I read what you said, and I read the comment you were responding to. Then I read both a second time because it was hard to believe you actually posted such a simplistic and nonsensical generality: It's okay to steal from someone who has more than you as long as you give to someone who has less. Perhaps you should go back and read your comment again.
Supposedly opening a door with a new key actually leaves small scratch marks inside the lock that can be found.. So there would be some evidence.
You've been watching way too many episodes of CSI. When I had a vehicle stolen in California, the police sent me a postcard that said, "If you find your vehicle, do not enter it or you will be arrested." They wouldn't even examine it for prints when the remains were found. Identifying scratches inside a lock? Right. Not unless you're the governor's son/daughter.
As long as they have less than you have and you have less than the person you stole it from.. then yes it's okay with me. Give til you bleed.
I know an old lady who has over $50,000 in the bank. She must be rich by your metrics, since there are so many with much less. The problem is she is living on Social Security and has health problems. The money is all she has left from a whole lifetime of hard work and saving, and it is draining away because of her medical expenses, and because the retirement programs don't cover them. Go ahead, steal from an old lady because she has more than you do. You could even put a good spin on it -- call it a mercy killing -- she wouldn't last much longer anyway, right?
The companies should have noticed that something was wrong when an account that was inactive for a significant amount of time suddenly has thousands of dollars in activity on it.
Some companies appear to be better at this than others. I have a card that I normally use once or twice a month for small purchases, and one day I used it to buy a lawn mower. When I got home, there was a message from the card's security office asking me to confirm the purchase.
Another time, a card I use all the time was suddenly cut off by the company. When I called about the problem, they said a charge had been made from the UK (and I haven't been there in over 20 years), so they had put the number on hold and subsequently cancelled it. So, some companies are watching for unusual behavior.
Unless, that is, you work somewhere that has a strict policy on the applying of updates (e.g. the IT department tests them first, before applying them), and employees were made aware of this policy, and informed of just what was their responsibility to do, and what was that of the IT department.
That sounds familiar. Our ITS people forbid users to use Microsoft Update (although they really can't stop it) because it's too dangerous, so you have to set up an appointment to have a MSCE come and update your system (even during the recent outbreak) so a lot of boxes became infected. The same ITS department charges the other departments more if they install Linux on computers for "extra maintenance". Due to the problems accessing the MS site, it took the ITS people over 10 hours to upgrade my work machine. Meanwhile, I was working from home over the VPN on my Linux box. I suppose there's a moral in there somewhere, and it's probably got something to do with empire-building.
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
The RIAA's offer does not even preclude it's own members from suing the people who apply for the so-called amnesty. C'mon, this is an organization that is shaking down a 12-year-old girl in the projects for $2,000 because she is a *major* dealer in *illicit* music. Don't give them any more credit than they are due -- which is none.
Disclaimer: I don't do p2p. I don't have any illegal or possibly infringing downloads. I still think the RIAA is a bunch of racketeers who deserve to be poked in the eye, and I told 'em so.
I seem to recall that little willy did'nt realy contribute anything. He just sort a looked over Steves shoulder and dreamt of fortune.
Not true. Bill not only did some coding, but he did some dumpster diving IIRC to get a copy of some existing code. So, we can all learn a lesson from that sorry episode about the evils of using another's IP . . . hmm, well, maybe not.
Considering that some of their employees could have access to some real nasty shit (viruses and chemicals and whatnot),
I agree, they have reason to be concerned, and more companies should be. Many goverment agency employees and their contractors' employees were recently subjected to background checks.
it makes sense they'd be more closely scrutinized than a guy in a cubicle at IBM . ..
I don't agree with that. The coder in the IBM cubicle could very well have the keys (pardon the pun) to restricted databases with sensitive (or supposedly secret) information. There are too many IT companies that don't care who works on what, as long as they're cheap. What they don't realize is that the people who build the software know exactly how it works and are often called in to handle problems with real data and thereby given access to it (even if they didn't have access in the first place).
So let's see.. This is an article about an article about an article that hasn't been published yet? Awesome..
No kidding. After checking all the links, all I came up with was SCO news and Darl (Rawhide) McBride practicing horticulture and his Dirty Harry imitation at the same time. Shooting penguins indeed. Feeling lucky Darl?
4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.
That is enough reason right there for the RIAA to want file sharing dead and buried. They make their money by selling albums with one good song on them to customers who are expecting more. I know, I own quite a few.
But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.
Don't be so sure. The feds could buy up the CDs and send them to the dairy farmers as subsidies. I read that cows produce more milk when music is played. Hmm, wait a minute . . . Britney and music . . . never mind -- bad plan.
Hmm, bad connections will do in any type of message, but as to your sig, jalapenos are for rookies. Try the *yellow peppers*. I can't remember the Spanish name, but they are very good and far more potent and memorable. Ouch!
I have a strong feeling the person who likes IM better than voice phone is much younger than you are. No big deal.
Yes, I think you're right on the first part, but my point is/was that a lot of information is really being lost by IM. Humans used speech long before writing or keyboards, and I think it is still easier for humans to *communicate* via the spoken word.
I am looking forward to the day when I wont have to pick up a phone ever again.
So you prefer short-hand glyphs to actually talking to someone where you can hear the tonal inflections? I gotta say, I think that's strange. There are so many flame wars started just because people mistake the intent behind text messages.
Would they be dumb enough (assuming they could even find out) to say that someone using a Linux laptop was violating the rule and being "less" safe than someone using Windows with the anti-virus software installed? Would they understand that that software doesn't exist on Linux only because there's no need for it (yet?).
Actually, I have read about a Linux anti-virus program, but I was so concerned that I forgot the name.:)
Will the idiots in charge believe that a computer with antivirus software on it is always more 'trusted' than one without, even if the reason it lacks the software is because it is at zero risk since it's not running the OS that has the viruses?
I had that problem when I wanted the company (ITS) to give me a VPN account. I am running Linux at home and could not give them the name of the anti-virus software, so they refused me access. I finally had to get the ITS manager's signature (and don't even ask me about that conversation -- talk about clueless:).
But there's something to be said for a language that makes it simple to do the right thing, and requires a bit more explicitness and verbosity to do the wrong thing. With C it is often the opposite.
While I can agree with that, I've often wondered why it is that no new *safe language* has ever been widely successful (unless you want to count Java as both safe and widely successful). Surely it is more than an aversion to "explicitness and verbosity". Perhaps it is due to inherent limitations of these languages?
Actually, I wouldn't blame C so much as the standard library. If there were a decent set of variable-sized array classes, safe string classes and so on included as part of the standard C library, we probably wouldn't see so many problems.
I may have missed something during the last couple of decades, but I don't recall any "classes" in the "C" standard library ("string classes" or otherwise), although one could argue that structures are unsafe classes. I think your original point was about responsibility for malware, and I still don't believe any particular language (or system administrators) should bear the blame. I blame certain nameless companies (with the initials MS) for irresponsible behavior and the easy propagation of malware. Again, the biggest problem is software produced by a certain company that enables trojan malware by default, which has nothing to do with programming languages or system administration.
Slashdot Mirror
Best of all we don't have one of those stupid "you have the right to protect yourself clauses" which came about when farmers had to keep guns around to keep their black slaves in line. US Constitution = Long live the 18th century!
Well, at least get your foreign history straight. The guns weren't used on slaves, they were used to evict the Brits -- twice. That's why the 2nd amendment is in place (and the 3rd) -- in case the Brits invade us again. :)
Retiring early would really suck, wouldn't it?
I assume that's sarcasm. My doctor did retire early, as in retire from medicine not from working, because of the cost of the malpractice insurance he'd never used. He no longer wanted to constantly raise his prices to patients who often couldn't afford what they were already being charged. So, he and the other three people in the office lost their jobs. I lost a really good, caring doctor. Sneer if you want.
Okay, turn in your Silent Majority membership card, roybob. You just became a member of the Vocal Opposition. :)
Unless the trial judge is Lewis Kaplan of DECSS fame, I can't see SCO winning.
IIRC, SCO has asked for a jury trial. And you can bet they will do all they can to empanel a jury that knows nothing about computers.
Obviously you either didn't read what I said or you just ignored it.
I read what you said, and I read the comment you were responding to. Then I read both a second time because it was hard to believe you actually posted such a simplistic and nonsensical generality: It's okay to steal from someone who has more than you as long as you give to someone who has less. Perhaps you should go back and read your comment again.
And I should have noted that there were obvious greasy prints on the interior.
Supposedly opening a door with a new key actually leaves small scratch marks inside the lock that can be found.. So there would be some evidence.
You've been watching way too many episodes of CSI. When I had a vehicle stolen in California, the police sent me a postcard that said, "If you find your vehicle, do not enter it or you will be arrested." They wouldn't even examine it for prints when the remains were found. Identifying scratches inside a lock? Right. Not unless you're the governor's son/daughter.
As long as they have less than you have and you have less than the person you stole it from.. then yes it's okay with me. Give til you bleed.
I know an old lady who has over $50,000 in the bank. She must be rich by your metrics, since there are so many with much less. The problem is she is living on Social Security and has health problems. The money is all she has left from a whole lifetime of hard work and saving, and it is draining away because of her medical expenses, and because the retirement programs don't cover them. Go ahead, steal from an old lady because she has more than you do. You could even put a good spin on it -- call it a mercy killing -- she wouldn't last much longer anyway, right?
The companies should have noticed that something was wrong when an account that was inactive for a significant amount of time suddenly has thousands of dollars in activity on it.
Some companies appear to be better at this than others. I have a card that I normally use once or twice a month for small purchases, and one day I used it to buy a lawn mower. When I got home, there was a message from the card's security office asking me to confirm the purchase.
Another time, a card I use all the time was suddenly cut off by the company. When I called about the problem, they said a charge had been made from the UK (and I haven't been there in over 20 years), so they had put the number on hold and subsequently cancelled it. So, some companies are watching for unusual behavior.
Redundant? No good deed goes unpunished on Slashdot, I guess.
Unless, that is, you work somewhere that has a strict policy on the applying of updates (e.g. the IT department tests them first, before applying them), and employees were made aware of this policy, and informed of just what was their responsibility to do, and what was that of the IT department.
That sounds familiar. Our ITS people forbid users to use Microsoft Update (although they really can't stop it) because it's too dangerous, so you have to set up an appointment to have a MSCE come and update your system (even during the recent outbreak) so a lot of boxes became infected. The same ITS department charges the other departments more if they install Linux on computers for "extra maintenance". Due to the problems accessing the MS site, it took the ITS people over 10 hours to upgrade my work machine. Meanwhile, I was working from home over the VPN on my Linux box. I suppose there's a moral in there somewhere, and it's probably got something to do with empire-building.
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
The RIAA's offer does not even preclude it's own members from suing the people who apply for the so-called amnesty. C'mon, this is an organization that is shaking down a 12-year-old girl in the projects for $2,000 because she is a *major* dealer in *illicit* music. Don't give them any more credit than they are due -- which is none.
Disclaimer: I don't do p2p. I don't have any illegal or possibly infringing downloads. I still think the RIAA is a bunch of racketeers who deserve to be poked in the eye, and I told 'em so.
I seem to recall that little willy did'nt realy contribute anything. He just sort a looked over Steves shoulder and dreamt of fortune.
Not true. Bill not only did some coding, but he did some dumpster diving IIRC to get a copy of some existing code. So, we can all learn a lesson from that sorry episode about the evils of using another's IP . . . hmm, well, maybe not.
Q: What do you call one senior executive leaving Sun?
A: Not nearly enough. The rank and file don't have any choice about it when their jobs are outsourced. At least one executive may have a clue.
Considering that some of their employees could have access to some real nasty shit (viruses and chemicals and whatnot),
I agree, they have reason to be concerned, and more companies should be. Many goverment agency employees and their contractors' employees were recently subjected to background checks.
it makes sense they'd be more closely scrutinized than a guy in a cubicle at IBM . . .
I don't agree with that. The coder in the IBM cubicle could very well have the keys (pardon the pun) to restricted databases with sensitive (or supposedly secret) information. There are too many IT companies that don't care who works on what, as long as they're cheap. What they don't realize is that the people who build the software know exactly how it works and are often called in to handle problems with real data and thereby given access to it (even if they didn't have access in the first place).
So let's see.. This is an article about an article about an article that hasn't been published yet? Awesome..
No kidding. After checking all the links, all I came up with was SCO news and Darl (Rawhide) McBride practicing horticulture and his Dirty Harry imitation at the same time. Shooting penguins indeed. Feeling lucky Darl?
4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.
That is enough reason right there for the RIAA to want file sharing dead and buried. They make their money by selling albums with one good song on them to customers who are expecting more. I know, I own quite a few.
But it's not like the U.S. government is going to purchase bulk copies of Britney just to keep the RIAA afloat.
Don't be so sure. The feds could buy up the CDs and send them to the dairy farmers as subsidies. I read that cows produce more milk when music is played. Hmm, wait a minute . . . Britney and music . . . never mind -- bad plan.
Hmm, bad connections will do in any type of message, but as to your sig, jalapenos are for rookies. Try the *yellow peppers*. I can't remember the Spanish name, but they are very good and far more potent and memorable. Ouch!
I have a strong feeling the person who likes IM better than voice phone is much younger than you are. No big deal.
Yes, I think you're right on the first part, but my point is/was that a lot of information is really being lost by IM. Humans used speech long before writing or keyboards, and I think it is still easier for humans to *communicate* via the spoken word.
All right, show of hands. Who is a geek and exclusively plays non-fun video games?
Well, it's not exclusive, but I did play all the Tomb Raider games. Does that count, or is it just a fixation on big guns?
I am looking forward to the day when I wont have to pick up a phone ever again.
So you prefer short-hand glyphs to actually talking to someone where you can hear the tonal inflections? I gotta say, I think that's strange. There are so many flame wars started just because people mistake the intent behind text messages.
Microsoft email clients (when patched) do not exhibit behavior that automatically spreads script viruses.
There is a patch that prevents Outlook users from clicking and running an attachment?
Would they be dumb enough (assuming they could even find out) to say that someone using a Linux laptop was violating the rule and being "less" safe than someone using Windows with the anti-virus software installed? Would they understand that that software doesn't exist on Linux only because there's no need for it (yet?).
Actually, I have read about a Linux anti-virus program, but I was so concerned that I forgot the name. :)
Will the idiots in charge believe that a computer with antivirus software on it is always more 'trusted' than one without, even if the reason it lacks the software is because it is at zero risk since it's not running the OS that has the viruses?
I had that problem when I wanted the company (ITS) to give me a VPN account. I am running Linux at home and could not give them the name of the anti-virus software, so they refused me access. I finally had to get the ITS manager's signature (and don't even ask me about that conversation -- talk about clueless :).
But there's something to be said for a language that makes it simple to do the right thing, and requires a bit more explicitness and verbosity to do the wrong thing. With C it is often the opposite.
While I can agree with that, I've often wondered why it is that no new *safe language* has ever been widely successful (unless you want to count Java as both safe and widely successful). Surely it is more than an aversion to "explicitness and verbosity". Perhaps it is due to inherent limitations of these languages?
Actually, I wouldn't blame C so much as the standard library. If there were a decent set of variable-sized array classes, safe string classes and so on included as part of the standard C library, we probably wouldn't see so many problems.
I may have missed something during the last couple of decades, but I don't recall any "classes" in the "C" standard library ("string classes" or otherwise), although one could argue that structures are unsafe classes. I think your original point was about responsibility for malware, and I still don't believe any particular language (or system administrators) should bear the blame. I blame certain nameless companies (with the initials MS) for irresponsible behavior and the easy propagation of malware. Again, the biggest problem is software produced by a certain company that enables trojan malware by default, which has nothing to do with programming languages or system administration.