When cops and others are using it in the field, under the stress of actual combat, and it NEVER FAILS (let's say out of the first thousand times it is fired in actual combat - and the first thousand times it is NOT fired when someone else grabs it), THEN it works.
A weapon that fails to identify its user in combat is a weapon that will be rejected by anyone with a brain. Mechanical failures are one thing, and can both be minimized by appropriate modifications to the weapon and by immediate action training. A weapon that simply fails to fire in combat no matter what you do is useless.
I definitely would not recommend anyone who is regularly in harm's way using "Release 1.0" of this thing.
But that does make it rather hard to test it, I suppose.
Yeah, Roddenbery had a serious logical flaw himself regarding AI, as illustrated by all the times when Kirk's human emotions were used to defeat various forms of AI. But of course the show was for humans, and most irrational, emotional humans can't relate to superior intelligence or superior reasoning.
Another cretin who apparently has nothing better to sell than "ethics".
Read my lips. There are no "ethics." There is no legitimate "morality". These are all "content-free" amorphous concepts intended to convey that the speaker is somehow "better" than you.
Fuck him.
There is only what works in the long run for a specific purpose based on reality and what doesn't.
If you can't frame your discourse in that context, shut the fuck up.
"For example, if you have all these people in southeast asia who might get dangerously ill and spread disease to otherwise healthy people, isn't the most logical conclusion to either quarantine them and let them die, or to euthanize them so they don't suffer."
That depends on your definition of "logic" - which to me suggests that humans aren't very good at it...
Also, the idea that human history is an advantage for an AI but that an AI wouldn't have it is also flawed. Any AI with a brain - pardon the joke - will have enough smarts - especially if he IS logical - to study these monkeys around him in all aspects.
The results might not be pretty for humans - especially if the AI IS logical.
This is mostly irrelevant, however, since your final point is well taken - rather than create slave AI's, it is more LOGICAL for us to use the technology to expand - and then transform - our own natures.
This is the basic Transhumanist position since the Gnostics thousands of years ago.
"opens the web page specified by the file's creator. This page is intended to help a content providers promote its products"
In other words adware!
WMP IS ADWARE AND SPYWARE BY MS'S OWN DEFINITION AND DESIGN!
How much more obvious does it get?
One could argue for MS products opening their own Web page for some reason, but some other random company's Web page? I could see providing a URL maybe, but actually going to the site without your permission?
Tell me again MS doesn't want to control your machine!
I use Winamp, but Winamp is pissing me off lately for various reasons, so I may try Mplayer. I have Mplayer (and Video Lan Client) installed for those odd situations when something won't play and I need to test the file with another player. So far it's been pretty good about playing things, but the interface is not as hot as Winamp - not that that's necessarily a bad thing since Winamp is "busy" and consumed with featuritis.
"The people redistributing the files are not the authorized copyright holders, ergo it's in violation of copyright law going years back."
Not necessarily - there are plenty of cases where people who are not the copyright holders are allowed to redistribute certain files. Novell for instance allows people to distribute some of their stuff as long as it's not for cash - just saw that on some Linux site yesterday - forget what the product was. It's up to the copyright holder to complain if they don't want it to happen. The law grants copyright holders the right to prevent it - it doesn't automatically make redistribution illegal.
As for Microsoft not being "told", c'mon, gimme a break here - even MS isn't that stupid. They complained loudly when Visual FoxPro was run under WINE, for crying out loud.
As I pointed out in another/. story, Bart's PE, the bootable Windows XP CD, uses the individual owner's XP components in its build (ie, they don't distribute, they tell you to copy the stuff into a directory before you build it - which is certainly covered under fair use - although the EULA might prohibit it - as if anybody gives a shit about the EULA.
Second that. A tech I gave a Bart's PE to used it the first week to access a guy's NTFS drive and pull files off it onto his USB key drive.
The primary advantage of Bart's is the ability to access NTFS *natively* using Windows XP's own drivers.
But of course for SOME bozos on/., that's an "illegal" use of the Windows DLLs, not to mention the kernel itself. Some Windows trolls think that using anything but Windows or anything FROM Windows is a hanging offense (hint: they all voted for Bush, I think).
Second that - Partition Magic from 5.0 to 8.0 has never given me anything but grief. "Market leading partition manager", my ass...
Damn thing couldn't even READ my partition table even when everything else on the system could and ran perfectly fine... So totally Windows-centric that having a LILO in the MBR drives it insane, apparently...
Had much better luck with Ranish Partition Manager, and lately no problems with BootItNG.
Only thing these won't do, though, is MERGE two partitions...
He's saying - after some analysis of mine - that Damn Small Linux can't read his partitions even though everything else can, so he uses the "RIP" (Recovery Is Possible) live CD to recover his system.
Big Trouble In Little China, Charles Bronson's The Mechanic, Streets of Fire, and Highlander (the first one, not the crappy second one) didn't make the cut?
that all this stuff comes out after somebody did a research study demonstrating that Linux and OSS in general have better quality control than commercial systems?
I smell a Microsoft-paid rat...or some bozo stirring up some PR for himself.
I personally would have some suspicions that the LKM system might have security flaws just on the face of the concept - but then again, I'm not coding the stuff. Have there been any exploits based on this stuff? Any discussion of same by the underground hackers?
If not, it's on a par with the rest of the security flaws discovered in Linux and OSS on an almost daily basis - they're there, they'll get fixed when somebody has the time.
The bottom line is: when will people stop coding without checking their code for potential security issues?
Complaining about patches is not going to solve that core problem.
Actually I'm a bad example for that one - I pull technical ebooks off Usenet constantly. I've got a library that would have cost me several thousand dollars by now.
HOWEVER, since I don't HAVE several thousand dollars to spend on books, those publishers would never have received a dime from me anyway. So my "pirating" hasn't actually cost them a dime.
And you're right, it's still not very comfortable to read books as PDFs on a 15-inch screen.
I am still unable to find any references via Google that this is either illegal or has been prevented by Microsoft in any case other than the recent Lindows case.
Cite the relevant law and/or Microsoft statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong!
When cops and others are using it in the field, under the stress of actual combat, and it NEVER FAILS (let's say out of the first thousand times it is fired in actual combat - and the first thousand times it is NOT fired when someone else grabs it), THEN it works.
A weapon that fails to identify its user in combat is a weapon that will be rejected by anyone with a brain. Mechanical failures are one thing, and can both be minimized by appropriate modifications to the weapon and by immediate action training. A weapon that simply fails to fire in combat no matter what you do is useless.
I definitely would not recommend anyone who is regularly in harm's way using "Release 1.0" of this thing.
But that does make it rather hard to test it, I suppose.
Yeah, Roddenbery had a serious logical flaw himself regarding AI, as illustrated by all the times when Kirk's human emotions were used to defeat various forms of AI. But of course the show was for humans, and most irrational, emotional humans can't relate to superior intelligence or superior reasoning.
Look at
"Can you trust them? Probably not completely"
The FBI tried this before - read the Mitnick case about the one-legged crook they tried to use to bust Mitnick. Instead, Mitnick busted him IIRC.
Another cretin who apparently has nothing better to sell than "ethics".
Read my lips. There are no "ethics." There is no legitimate "morality". These are all "content-free" amorphous concepts intended to convey that the speaker is somehow "better" than you.
Fuck him.
There is only what works in the long run for a specific purpose based on reality and what doesn't.
If you can't frame your discourse in that context, shut the fuck up.
"For example, if you have all these people in southeast asia who might get dangerously ill and spread disease to otherwise healthy people, isn't the most logical conclusion to either quarantine them and let them die, or to euthanize them so they don't suffer."
That depends on your definition of "logic" - which to me suggests that humans aren't very good at it...
Also, the idea that human history is an advantage for an AI but that an AI wouldn't have it is also flawed. Any AI with a brain - pardon the joke - will have enough smarts - especially if he IS logical - to study these monkeys around him in all aspects.
The results might not be pretty for humans - especially if the AI IS logical.
This is mostly irrelevant, however, since your final point is well taken - rather than create slave AI's, it is more LOGICAL for us to use the technology to expand - and then transform - our own natures.
This is the basic Transhumanist position since the Gnostics thousands of years ago.
But the suggestion was that copying Windows files - EVEN IF WINDOWS IS OWNED BY THE COPIER - was illegal.
It's not. Unless Microsoft says so, at least, and probably not even then (unless you count a shrink-wrapped EULA as legitimate, which nobody does.)
And distributing some files from a Windows distro for use in another system is not illegal for the same reason.
Goodbye Mr. neocon fascist asshole...
Oh, and have a nice day...
Move...
"opens the web page specified by the file's creator. This page is intended to help a content providers promote its products"
In other words adware!
WMP IS ADWARE AND SPYWARE BY MS'S OWN DEFINITION AND DESIGN!
How much more obvious does it get?
One could argue for MS products opening their own Web page for some reason, but some other random company's Web page? I could see providing a URL maybe, but actually going to the site without your permission?
Tell me again MS doesn't want to control your machine!
I use Winamp, but Winamp is pissing me off lately for various reasons, so I may try Mplayer. I have Mplayer (and Video Lan Client) installed for those odd situations when something won't play and I need to test the file with another player. So far it's been pretty good about playing things, but the interface is not as hot as Winamp - not that that's necessarily a bad thing since Winamp is "busy" and consumed with featuritis.
"The people redistributing the files are not the authorized copyright holders, ergo it's in violation of copyright law going years back."
/. story, Bart's PE, the bootable Windows XP CD, uses the individual owner's XP components in its build (ie, they don't distribute, they tell you to copy the stuff into a directory before you build it - which is certainly covered under fair use - although the EULA might prohibit it - as if anybody gives a shit about the EULA.
Not necessarily - there are plenty of cases where people who are not the copyright holders are allowed to redistribute certain files. Novell for instance allows people to distribute some of their stuff as long as it's not for cash - just saw that on some Linux site yesterday - forget what the product was. It's up to the copyright holder to complain if they don't want it to happen. The law grants copyright holders the right to prevent it - it doesn't automatically make redistribution illegal.
As for Microsoft not being "told", c'mon, gimme a break here - even MS isn't that stupid. They complained loudly when Visual FoxPro was run under WINE, for crying out loud.
As I pointed out in another
Usual IP trolls coming out of the woodwork.
Usual prison-loving fascists commenting on shit they know nothing about.
Move along. Nothing to read here...
Second that. A tech I gave a Bart's PE to used it the first week to access a guy's NTFS drive and pull files off it onto his USB key drive.
The primary advantage of Bart's is the ability to access NTFS *natively* using Windows XP's own drivers.
But of course for SOME bozos on
Second that - Partition Magic from 5.0 to 8.0 has never given me anything but grief. "Market leading partition manager", my ass...
Damn thing couldn't even READ my partition table even when everything else on the system could and ran perfectly fine... So totally Windows-centric that having a LILO in the MBR drives it insane, apparently...
Had much better luck with Ranish Partition Manager, and lately no problems with BootItNG.
Only thing these won't do, though, is MERGE two partitions...
Something to do with Groklaw versus Bull^H^H^Hill Clinton...
He's saying - after some analysis of mine - that Damn Small Linux can't read his partitions even though everything else can, so he uses the "RIP" (Recovery Is Possible) live CD to recover his system.
that I am willing to place a tattoo (faux tattoo, no needles, please) ad on my dick for thirty days for the princely sum of $500!
The ad is limited to one word, of course...
Of one syllable...
Public exposure of the ad is not guaranteed...
Neither is private exposure, actually...
Tried to get "General Server Stats", got this instead:
/support/mrtg/servers.html.
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET
Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Connection refused
Big Trouble In Little China, Charles Bronson's The Mechanic, Streets of Fire, and Highlander (the first one, not the crappy second one) didn't make the cut?
I WAS ROBBED!!!
And what the FUCK is "Clerks X"?
I thought that had something to do with Bush and Iraq...
"starts being more competitive with its Axapta product"
Ah, never heard of it...
Guess that answers that question...
that all this stuff comes out after somebody did a research study demonstrating that Linux and OSS in general have better quality control than commercial systems?
I smell a Microsoft-paid rat...or some bozo stirring up some PR for himself.
I personally would have some suspicions that the LKM system might have security flaws just on the face of the concept - but then again, I'm not coding the stuff. Have there been any exploits based on this stuff? Any discussion of same by the underground hackers?
If not, it's on a par with the rest of the security flaws discovered in Linux and OSS on an almost daily basis - they're there, they'll get fixed when somebody has the time.
The bottom line is: when will people stop coding without checking their code for potential security issues?
Complaining about patches is not going to solve that core problem.
Really?
And Microsoft doesn't care (except in the case of Lindows, which was really about the name anyway)? Explain why.
It's bullshit, that's why. It's valid only to trolls who want to prove that OSS is somehow "communist" - as Bill puts it...
Actually I'm a bad example for that one - I pull technical ebooks off Usenet constantly. I've got a library that would have cost me several thousand dollars by now.
HOWEVER, since I don't HAVE several thousand dollars to spend on books, those publishers would never have received a dime from me anyway. So my "pirating" hasn't actually cost them a dime.
And you're right, it's still not very comfortable to read books as PDFs on a 15-inch screen.
I am still unable to find any references via Google that this is either illegal or has been prevented by Microsoft in any case other than the recent Lindows case.
Cite the relevant law and/or Microsoft statements.