The Sealand invasion, the hostage taking, and the subsequent dawn raid and recapture were comedic stunts. Read about Sealand with a smirk and you won't go far wrong - except that yes, they really were declared to be out of the jurisdiction of British courts by a British judge.
Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.
Wow, you could be describing world war II, Vietnam, or any number of other 'legitimate' conflicts. It really isn't that cut and dried.
It also buys a lot more bacon sandwiches, which is the type of thing the 50k person would be buying with their tax, as opposed to new yachts and other luxuries that the guy with 10 million would spend it on. But the fact is, they probably wouldn't spend it, it would amass in some portfolio - rich peoples money is dead money, it does nothing to help the economy.
Tell me about it. I got DirectTV about 3 years ago and at that time I had to buy the DVRs etc. The ensuing questions regarding why I would need to "rent" equipment that I had just bought seemed to bounce around the empty head of the sales guy.
Incentive stock options, or qualified stock options, do not create a taxable event until the stock is sold.
Wrong. They create a taxable event when the stock is bought for the purposes of alternative minimum tax (AMT). Trust me, long before you get to a million dollars you are into paying AMT, and this is how many people found themselves with huge tax bills based on money they had never seen, and a stock portfolio that wouldn't even cover the tax bill when the dot coms bombed.
would you seriously consider running a closed-source application, that is
a) cosuming your entire cpu resources
b) recieves instructions from the internet
c) sends back information gathered at your computer
d) has not provided any scientific value (a la seti@home)
Please, lets have less of this Microsoft Windows bashing and get back to the subject at hand.
I just want to point out one thing. America was not build by slaves. There were slaves, yes, but they didn't build the country. Relatively few people owned slaves and the slaves were mostly used for farming in the south (versus industry in the north).
Slaves worked the fields in the south. The same south that has been described as Americas kitchen. While the folk up north north busy working the industry they were eating the products of slavery at the prices that slavery gets you.
Therefore, the grandparents assertion has at least some credible foundation.
IANAL but it seems to me that these arguments for click through EULAs fail on the basis of what I understand contract law to be. That is, there is no contract unless both sides recieve something of value. Now lets looks at software: I buy some software from a store, I pay the store money, they give me a box that contains a product. At this point a contract has been excercised - the store gets money, I get the the full use of the product I have purchased so everybopdy gets what they deserve. I then open the box and attempt to use the product I have purchased, now whether a slip of paper drops out of the box advising me of further restrictions on my use of the product or I have to click through an EULA, nothing of value has been conferred to me in exchange for giving up rights to do what I will with what I own. Ergo, no second contract has been entered into.
Now look at the book example. Books are covered by copyright only. That is, you may stop me from copying your work, but there is nothing that you can do to stop me reading it. For instance, I can read your book without purchasing it, just by standing in the book store or going to the library. Again no contract, no ability to limit my rights. If I purchase your book I own that book and I can do as I will bar re-distributing the work and it would be some really funky kangaroo court that would disagree.
Of course, business contracts often have stipulations like these. The important point being that both parties know what those stipulations are prior to sale - or they are unenforceable. In every case of EULA I have ever seen, you are not informed of these additional restrictions until after you have purchased the product i.e. until after the contract has been executed.
It seems to me that if the EULA is legal enforceable, then it ought to be legal for me to purchase software, and upon finalizing the purchase for me to hand the store owner my additional restrictions on the use of the money I just gave him e.g. to be used as a charitable donation only, or perhaps that he must throw me a birthday party this year.
"Poo-poo" is American adolescent idiom meaning excrement, as in "I went poo-poo in my diapers again!"
I pooh pooh your explaination:
a) it is of British origin (and we have enough trouble wrestling our words off the French that you needn't think we will just stand idly by while you half inch them under our noses) - I believe a bastardization of the French for chamber pot, Po' Poh or something.
b) only when speaking to small children is a pooh pooh a shit
c) in this context it means to dismiss
d) it also means a bad smell
For a thorough useage of the term pooh pooh, please see Blackadder:
Melchett: Well, bugger me with a fishfork! Old Darling, a Jerry morsetapper?
What on Earth made you suspect him?
Mary: Well, he pooh-poohed the captain here and said that he'd never find
the spy.
Melchett: Is this true, Blackadder? Did Captain Darling pooh-pooh you?
Edmund: Well, perhaps a little.
Melchett: Well then, damn it all, how much more evidence do you need? The
pooh-poohing alone is a court-martial offence!
Edmund: I can assure you, sir, that the pooh-poohing was purely circumstantial.
Melchett: Well, I hope so, Blackadder. You know, if there's one thing I've
learned from being in the army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh.
I knew a major: got pooh-poohed; made the mistake of ignoring the
pooh-pooh -- he pooh-poohed it. Fatal error, because it turned out
all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing
a lot of other officers, who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the
end, we had to disband the regiment -- morale totally destroyed...
by pooh-pooh!
Yep Sony has not meant quality for a while in my book. They lost me when I bought a vcr and it buzzed when you played a video, loudly enough that from 7 feet away it annoyed the hell out of me enough to turn up the volume way above normal listening. Then I read the manual, and a page or two in it said if you hear a buzz when playing a video, it is not a fault but normal operation...
WTF?
A fuller reply since the parent post is getting modded up.
Yes a Directory Server is a database.
A database that is not even in 1st normal form.
1NF through nNF apply to relational databases. They are the guidelines for relational database designers to follow so that they create reasonable relational tables. X.500 and it's cousin LDAP make no claim to being relational protocols. Your comment is as relevant as saying it's a database that does not support SQL.
Other highlights include a hiarchical tree structure to store entries and extensive standard schema for many object types.
And primary keys called "dn"s (distinguished names) that reflect the tree structure in a kind of path, so that when you move objects around in the tree, the dn changes.
There you go again. Primary and secondary keys are concepts used in relational databases to describe properties of particular data fields - whether you will retrieve a single row or multiple, serve to provide for relations. In LDAP, there are no keys, the purpose of a distinguished name (DN) is to uniquely describe an entry such that it can be uniquely referenced - whereas in relational DB's a primary key gives you the means to search for particular row in a particular table, a DN tells you exactly where an entry is. It does have a hiearchical property, and yes that should be used with care, just like relational DB's should be designed with care - so much care there are formalized rules to guide the unwary (those normal forms again!)
You'll have to change all other attributes that contain this dn as a value in order to keep the tree consistent. There are no mechanisms in LDAP that help you to do this, i.e. there are no constraints.
Oh there are most certainly constraints in LDAP, just not the ones you are expecting, because you are expecting it to be a relational database. I wonder what attributes you refer to that contain the DN, I have always found that the unique property of the DN is sufficient to not duplicate it (where is your 1NF if you are doing that?) Perhaps you refer to other entries containing the DN of the entry to be moved. That is a problem so simple to solve, you can automate it - and just to prove it, that is exactly what we did when adding the referential integrity plugin to the directory server. Yes, referential integrity, because despite not being a relational database, you may create certain relations by using DN's as attribute values.
But that isn't really a problem, because you wouldn't want to use dn valued entries anyway - LDAPs query language has no join operation at all,
Bingo! Because join implies relation and as we all know by now LDAP is not a relational protocol.
so in order to resolve a mail alias object containing dn valued entries for the rhs of the mail alias, you'd be forced to program that resolution in a loop by hand on the client side. For each client supporting it.
Or you could do the sensible thing and use a dynamic group which provides you with the information you need to perform one search to retrieve all members of the alias. Static groups are not LDAP's finest hour granted, and dynamic groups do not work the same way as static groups - and that is why the Netscape server supports roles.
In order to minimize dn volatility, you end up flattening your tree structure, for example by putting all users into the same level just below "ou=users,dc=example,dc=com". Which has the added benefit of making a lot of queries easier and faster.
Actually that makes no difference to ease or speed - you are assuming something about the way the server works which you are not qualified to do. It does however help in minimizing maintenance involved in moving entries - but that is because i
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly shares that characteristic, yes.
This is impractical for any useful scale.
The Sealand invasion, the hostage taking, and the subsequent dawn raid and recapture were comedic stunts. Read about Sealand with a smirk and you won't go far wrong - except that yes, they really were declared to be out of the jurisdiction of British courts by a British judge.
A web of trust is only as trustworthy as the least trustworthy member of the web.
So you're comparing tarring and feathering to suicide bombings of mosques and markets?
Are you feeling alright? Make sure you're not running a fever.
The tar is rather hot, or the feathers don't stick. Fairly terrifying I would have thought.
Terrorists use the populace as human shields, deliberately hide their weapons and identities, deliberately target civilians, and are just generally subhuman scum.
Wow, you could be describing world war II, Vietnam, or any number of other 'legitimate' conflicts. It really isn't that cut and dried.
On the internet nobody is completely anonymous. Everybody sends an identifier with each packet. It's called an ip address.
It also buys a lot more bacon sandwiches, which is the type of thing the 50k person would be buying with their tax, as opposed to new yachts and other luxuries that the guy with 10 million would spend it on. But the fact is, they probably wouldn't spend it, it would amass in some portfolio - rich peoples money is dead money, it does nothing to help the economy.
Tell me about it. I got DirectTV about 3 years ago and at that time I had to buy the DVRs etc. The ensuing questions regarding why I would need to "rent" equipment that I had just bought seemed to bounce around the empty head of the sales guy.
I went to his myspace page a few minutes ago and watched the video of "A Girl Like You." It's the one at the bottom of the list.
Yep, every Saturday night after pub closing time as I recall.
Knoppmyth is the whole shebang. I based my dedicated install on it. http://www.mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html
Wrong. They create a taxable event when the stock is bought for the purposes of alternative minimum tax (AMT). Trust me, long before you get to a million dollars you are into paying AMT, and this is how many people found themselves with huge tax bills based on money they had never seen, and a stock portfolio that wouldn't even cover the tax bill when the dot coms bombed.
AMT is evil.
Therefore, the grandparents assertion has at least some credible foundation.
IANAL but it seems to me that these arguments for click through EULAs fail on the basis of what I understand contract law to be. That is, there is no contract unless both sides recieve something of value. Now lets looks at software: I buy some software from a store, I pay the store money, they give me a box that contains a product. At this point a contract has been excercised - the store gets money, I get the the full use of the product I have purchased so everybopdy gets what they deserve. I then open the box and attempt to use the product I have purchased, now whether a slip of paper drops out of the box advising me of further restrictions on my use of the product or I have to click through an EULA, nothing of value has been conferred to me in exchange for giving up rights to do what I will with what I own. Ergo, no second contract has been entered into.
Now look at the book example. Books are covered by copyright only. That is, you may stop me from copying your work, but there is nothing that you can do to stop me reading it. For instance, I can read your book without purchasing it, just by standing in the book store or going to the library. Again no contract, no ability to limit my rights. If I purchase your book I own that book and I can do as I will bar re-distributing the work and it would be some really funky kangaroo court that would disagree.
Of course, business contracts often have stipulations like these. The important point being that both parties know what those stipulations are prior to sale - or they are unenforceable. In every case of EULA I have ever seen, you are not informed of these additional restrictions until after you have purchased the product i.e. until after the contract has been executed.
It seems to me that if the EULA is legal enforceable, then it ought to be legal for me to purchase software, and upon finalizing the purchase for me to hand the store owner my additional restrictions on the use of the money I just gave him e.g. to be used as a charitable donation only, or perhaps that he must throw me a birthday party this year.
Yep Sony has not meant quality for a while in my book. They lost me when I bought a vcr and it buzzed when you played a video, loudly enough that from 7 feet away it annoyed the hell out of me enough to turn up the volume way above normal listening. Then I read the manual, and a page or two in it said if you hear a buzz when playing a video, it is not a fault but normal operation...
WTF?
Clearly you have been shadow banned from your own site!
1NF through nNF apply to relational databases. They are the guidelines for relational database designers to follow so that they create reasonable relational tables. X.500 and it's cousin LDAP make no claim to being relational protocols. Your comment is as relevant as saying it's a database that does not support SQL.
There you go again. Primary and secondary keys are concepts used in relational databases to describe properties of particular data fields - whether you will retrieve a single row or multiple, serve to provide for relations. In LDAP, there are no keys, the purpose of a distinguished name (DN) is to uniquely describe an entry such that it can be uniquely referenced - whereas in relational DB's a primary key gives you the means to search for particular row in a particular table, a DN tells you exactly where an entry is. It does have a hiearchical property, and yes that should be used with care, just like relational DB's should be designed with care - so much care there are formalized rules to guide the unwary (those normal forms again!)
Oh there are most certainly constraints in LDAP, just not the ones you are expecting, because you are expecting it to be a relational database. I wonder what attributes you refer to that contain the DN, I have always found that the unique property of the DN is sufficient to not duplicate it (where is your 1NF if you are doing that?) Perhaps you refer to other entries containing the DN of the entry to be moved. That is a problem so simple to solve, you can automate it - and just to prove it, that is exactly what we did when adding the referential integrity plugin to the directory server. Yes, referential integrity, because despite not being a relational database, you may create certain relations by using DN's as attribute values.
Bingo! Because join implies relation and as we all know by now LDAP is not a relational protocol.
Or you could do the sensible thing and use a dynamic group which provides you with the information you need to perform one search to retrieve all members of the alias. Static groups are not LDAP's finest hour granted, and dynamic groups do not work the same way as static groups - and that is why the Netscape server supports roles.
Actually that makes no difference to ease or speed - you are assuming something about the way the server works which you are not qualified to do. It does however help in minimizing maintenance involved in moving entries - but that is because i
Perhaps. Larger news sites than slashdot have used Netscape DS to serve articles. That does not mean it is suited to slashdot though.
You are quite right, LDAP makes a terrible SQL server. Don't deploy it when that is what you need.