Maybe Redhat should buy themselves a version of SCO-Linux, declare that Redhat Linux is a derivative of that and point to the GPL SCO helpfully provided.
Now, every educated person knows that HIV is not limited to gay people, or to drug users, or to people who have anal sex. HIV is out there, and everybody is at risk of contracting it, though for the vast majority of people that risk is statistically insignificant.
But the notion, correct or incorrect, that HIV is confined to a particular group or that it's only transmitted by a particular illegal or socially unacceptable activity gives one pause. Is it really right to spend $X on AIDS research when one hundred times more people die of cancer or heart disease or stroke every year?
So let's get this straight: what you're implying is, that since AIDS is contracted mostly by poeple conducting "socially unaceptable" activities it's better to spend the money on curing cancer, heart diseases, etc.
So you're discriminating parts of the population based on your moral assumptions about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour and decide that the folks not living after your moral codex are less worthy of a cure for their illness (or an illness they're more likely affected by) than the rest. I don't know if that's what you intended to say, but that's the basic assumption that is part of your argument.
So unding or not funding AIDS-research is suddenly based on the moral views of those who decide where the funding goes. Well, maybe you're not the only one thinking along those lines, and the Bush administration is just pushing theirmoralviews by basically hindering funding for AIDS-related research, or, to be more precise, for any research dealing with people engaged in "socially unacceptable behaviour".
"Moore Linthicum Spam" is sufficient for a google search and turns up enough sites listing his address. It also turns up some articles suggesting that any trouble Mr. Moore gets is richly deserved.
But trivializing terrorism by claiming that pirates sponsor terrorists and thus coming to the conclusion that pirates=terrorists is not?
It was also found that ...
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 1
... people with big cars and large houses earn more money than people that live for rent and have small or no (gasp) cars. So go out and buy a big car today to get a better job tomorrow!
Using the USB current to directly charge high voltage capacitors, the iGrill does not require any additional power supply, making it perfect for dorm or office cooking.
According to the USB specifications USB only needs to provide 2.5W per device (5V x 500mA), they couldn't resist laying extra emphasis on powering that grill only via USB power supply.
So it's illegal to claim that the death camps are a myth.
It is, and anyone publicating such lies in germany can (and probably will) get in legal troubles. There's still some groups who deny the existence of the concentration camps and try to get some advantages out of that, and there is a very small percentage of people who prefer believing them to facing the reality that they or their parents were part of this or at least let this happen. But since such lies have to be spread by mouth-to-mouth propaganda and most germans learn about the reality in history lessons only the most gullible believe in the lies.
The UN weakened itself. Making resolutions, but refusing the back them up is the quick road to becoming irrelevent.
The US, working as part of the UN and helping to enforce its resolutions could have strengthened the UN. Applying pressure to get the Iraq to obey the resolutions was right, but once that showed results it was wrong to go on with that war. But apparently the USA aren't interested in a strong UN enforcing international law anyway, they prefer sending in their army enforcing their law.
We are the last remaining "superpower", and as a sort of 'parent' to the world,...
This shows exactly the arrogant stance of the USA toward the world. Get it into your head, that other countries don't consider themselves as toddlers needing a "parent" to guide their way. I don't see how that contradicts the concept that the strong should help the weak. If you help someone (because you have the means to), do you also tell him how he has to lead his life, and if that doesn't help beat some sense into him?
A chemical weapons factory is a little harder to smuggle into a foreign country,...
Sure, if independent experts may properly examine that evidence... all the "evidence" the USA claims to have is either under wraps or flimsy and unconvincing (a drawn up picture of a truck with a chemical weapons factory, well, i can draw up flying saucers flying over area 51, what does that prove?). And if that "paperwork trail" is anything like those internet printouts that were found in afghanistan then it's not very convincing.
This is not censorship, it's restricting minors access to such games. If that is justified and done in an efficient way is up for discussion.
The german constitution allows banning any party that is against this constitution and which intents to weaken or undermine it (maybe there's a similar clause in other constitutions too). That clause was also used against a communist party once, and is generally considered against extremist (left and right) parties.
Yes, it is forbidden to display swastikas, it's also forbidden to misrepresent germanys past. Those swastikas are are usually used to convince people that Hitler had all the right ideas and that we should get back to those "good old times", which, among other things, is against the constitution. Also the swastikas were outlawed to distinct post-war-germany from the 3rd Reich.
The "historical context"-part is necessary to allow depicting of nazis in historical contexts, like in history books, for educational use, in movies about the Nazi-times and exhibitions. There's no political gatherings disguising as "historical meetings" or political magazines coming along as "historical information leaflets".
In fact forbidding swastikas does help to reduce the spread of neo-nazism in germany. Public display of swastikas will always lead to public awareness and generally arouse more anti-nazi sentiments than pro-nazi. Were swastikas allowed the issue would have probably been muddied down, and that would have helped to spread nazi-memes under the disguise of "nordic ideals" or similar nonsense.
The most important law against neo-nazism IMO is that the german history in WWII may not be misrepresented. This makes it impossible to misrepresent the nazis as innocents and to deny the existence of concentration camps.
What really upsets the people is, that the US government simply started this war without presenting convincing reasons that it is necessary and justified. Also the US government put themselves above international agreements, weakening the UN in the process. They basically told anyone of different opinion to go fuck themselves. This is the behaviour of the biggest bully on the schoolyard and it is perceived as such. Bush wanted to have his war, he escalated the conflict and he started it, and noone, not the inspectors findings (or lack of them) nor the UN could get him off this course.
And no, it really won't change much if WMD are found now. Most people would probably think that it's fabricated evidence to justify that war after it started (like in those film scenes where the corrupt policemen raid an innocents house and drop some drugs in a corner to justify their doing so, this is not about saddam being innocent, it's about the role modell those people will liken the US to). Also G.W. Bush already demonstrated, that he doesn't need evidence to start a war, aparently "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to countries, it was replaced by "who is not with us is against us" recently.
And while the US probably should have gone against Saddam 12 years ago (a lot of people didn't understand why they did not) the situation today has changed, the Iraq under Saddam and under UN surveillance was under control and no threat to its neighbours. Even the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator doesn't justify starting a war either. That cleaning up is still a war, and one that is probably creating more problems than it solves.
Well, there is a specialized distribution channel, kind of: pirating. That 'restricted list' won't keep any game out of the hands (or computer) of any child determined to have it. But it will prevent parents from giving it to their child as a christmas present or somesuch.
And while shops could sell the game 'under the counter' (i.e. not display it publicly but sell it to any adult who asks for it) only some specialized games-stores do that in reality (and they're nearly extinct). The really big shops like 'Media-markt' (big stores-chain for electronic/electrical consumer products and entertainment media) and 'Saturn' (similar) don't want the hassle and simply don't sell restricted games.
The interesting thing here was the trend! The survey was focusing on Linux developers (developers involved in Linux developement), and so the "sample" was obviously not representative for developers worldwide, but hopefully it was representative for developers involved in Linux developement. So it's not surprising that a pretty high number (40%) of those focus primarily on Linux while 50% focus primarily on Windows.
The interesting part was, that the developers were also asked, what they would focus on in the future. The answer was, that in the future there'd be 50% focusing on Linux and 40% on Windows. So in the future there'll be a shift of focus towards Linux-developement, at least among the 400 developers surveyed.
Does this tell anything about how many developers worldwide will shift their focus towards Linux-development? Well if you take that 10% increase times the number of people worldwide involved with Linux-development (which the sample is supposed to represent) then you get an absolute number. You're missing the people not yet involved in Linux-development but focusing on it next year, and you're also missing job-starters who immediatley focus on Linux vs. jobstarters immediately focusing on Windows. So it's only a lower bound. But at least the absolute number of Linux-focused developers is on the rise, and if the "job-starters-effect" shows similar trends or is at least not canceling out the observed trend, then the percentage of developers focusing on Linux is also on the rise.
Interestingly the same survey next year (with a new sample) might still come up with the 40% for Linux and 50% for Windows numbers while the projections still hold true. Now how's that? Well the survey (or at least the numbers presented) does not reflect the number of developers who will become involved in Linux-development (so they end up in the next surveyed and "sampled" group) but still focus primarily on Windows (so they add to the 50% Windows-focused group).
Hmm, it's really easy to do some funny things with statistics.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.
But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?
So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA evensupported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.
This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.
So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but isjustaboutoil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.
This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?
And most of these Europeans in the coalition (and other coalition members too) were "persuaded" (german) by the US leveraging their economical power over these countries. This persuading doesn't do these countries much good and even hurts democratic values. But then the current US-government doesn't even care about the all that democracy stuff in the USA. But that should be no surprise, considering how G.W. Bush became president.
When you're at the south pole then any movement (except maybe jumping up) is "inching closer" to the north pole.
I mean: the intention of Microsofts shared source (ensure that MS can make money of the software forever and keep total control) and the GPL (make sure that everyone can use it, change it and even derived versions for free) is as different as can be. So any move of MS that makes shared source a little less restrictive is "inching" towards the GPL, but since they're miles apart an inch doesn't change much in the larger picture.
If there is a real chance for SCO to win that lawsuit, or at least settle in the region of a billion dollars, then SCO is worth that billion dollars. If the shareholders think that's the case they simply shouldn't sell their shares for less than what they are worth. If enough shareholders think that way the price of the shares will go up until it reflects the value of SCO including any money from the lawsuit (or at least what the majority of people think what the value is).
At least that's how it's supposed to work. If the majority of shareholders don't know the value of their shares they deserve to be screwed, and with what little money they get for their shares they could buy some nice land on the moon. The obvious problem here is figuring out what SCO is worth and after that figuring out what everyone else thinks SCO is worth. But that's what the whole shareholder-business is all about.
I mean: this has been around for so long, everyone should know it by now. That is why so many reactions are what they are. Sure it is a security hole, but a very obvious one, so why post a big article about it? Every sysadmin should know about it and about the relevant security measures anyway.
The big picture is that most admins assume that noone will boldly open the computer case and simply attach the disk to an other computer, and that there's a lot of admins who also assume that noone will fiddle around with the boot sequence to gain unauthorized access. They basically trust the person who sits in front of the computer.
So the fundamental question is: how much do you trust the person in front of the computer and how much effort are you going to invest to secure the machines against their unauthorized access.
For me yawning also works for pressure adjustment (don't know the english term): it makes my ears 'pop' (yeah i learned scuba diving and know of other ways too, but yawning also works for me). Sitting in a plane i wondered if you couldn't help people by making them yawn during starting and landing. This might work especially well with babies, since you can't explain to them how to adjust the pressure, but you might make them yawn by yawning in front of them.
The USA's was supposed to "screw" Microsoft, because Microsoft so blatantly screws their competitors and their customers. But it wasn't to be, Mr. G. W. Bush announced, even before he cheated his way into the white house, that Microsoft would get off easily and so it happened. So the USA decided not to apply their own laws to get a grip on Microsofts monopolistic bullying, and now you're complaining when other countries don't let Microsoft as easy off the hook as the USA? The EU would probably benefit more from regulating the MS-monopoly than the USA, but how is that a reason not to apply EU law in this case?
Sounds like normal sysadmin work required to apply a patch, only a good sysadmin would also try to get an idea what those scripts and patches will do to his system before he applies them.
Download and extract a patch, what a horror! Then making a backup, a feat, never attempted before... manually copying files wow, that's a hard one, and even run scripts, ooof and in the right order too (which is probably written in some README file anyway). Did i miss the irony in your post?
Many good sysadmins might prefer it that way (copying and running scripts by hand), because then they know what happens, and how to undo it, while with some pushbutton-fully-automated update it's much harder to figure out what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Redhat should buy themselves a version of SCO-Linux, declare that Redhat Linux is a derivative of that and point to the GPL SCO helpfully provided.
Now, every educated person knows that HIV is not limited to gay people, or to drug users, or to people who have anal sex. HIV is out there, and everybody is at risk of contracting it, though for the vast majority of people that risk is statistically insignificant.
But the notion, correct or incorrect, that HIV is confined to a particular group or that it's only transmitted by a particular illegal or socially unacceptable activity gives one pause. Is it really right to spend $X on AIDS research when one hundred times more people die of cancer or heart disease or stroke every year?
So let's get this straight: what you're implying is, that since AIDS is contracted mostly by poeple conducting "socially unaceptable" activities it's better to spend the money on curing cancer, heart diseases, etc.
So you're discriminating parts of the population based on your moral assumptions about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour and decide that the folks not living after your moral codex are less worthy of a cure for their illness (or an illness they're more likely affected by) than the rest. I don't know if that's what you intended to say, but that's the basic assumption that is part of your argument.
So unding or not funding AIDS-research is suddenly based on the moral views of those who decide where the funding goes. Well, maybe you're not the only one thinking along those lines, and the Bush administration is just pushing their moral views by basically hindering funding for AIDS-related research, or, to be more precise, for any research dealing with people engaged in "socially unacceptable behaviour".
... can we then at least post the address of the judge who thinks that privacy rights of spammers are to be valued over those of their victims?
"Moore Linthicum Spam" is sufficient for a google search and turns up enough sites listing his address. It also turns up some articles suggesting that any trouble Mr. Moore gets is richly deserved.
But trivializing terrorism by claiming that pirates sponsor terrorists and thus coming to the conclusion that pirates=terrorists is not?
... people with big cars and large houses earn more money than people that live for rent and have small or no (gasp) cars. So go out and buy a big car today to get a better job tomorrow!
... the result is obviously four, not three.
Using the USB current to directly charge high voltage capacitors, the iGrill does not require any additional power supply, making it perfect for dorm or office cooking.
According to the USB specifications USB only needs to provide 2.5W per device (5V x 500mA), they couldn't resist laying extra emphasis on powering that grill only via USB power supply.
So it's illegal to claim that the death camps are a myth.
It is, and anyone publicating such lies in germany can (and probably will) get in legal troubles. There's still some groups who deny the existence of the concentration camps and try to get some advantages out of that, and there is a very small percentage of people who prefer believing them to facing the reality that they or their parents were part of this or at least let this happen. But since such lies have to be spread by mouth-to-mouth propaganda and most germans learn about the reality in history lessons only the most gullible believe in the lies.
The UN weakened itself. Making resolutions, but refusing the back them up is the quick road to becoming irrelevent.
...
...
... all the "evidence" the USA claims to have is either under wraps or flimsy and unconvincing (a drawn up picture of a truck with a chemical weapons factory, well, i can draw up flying saucers flying over area 51, what does that prove?). And if that "paperwork trail" is anything like those internet printouts that were found in afghanistan then it's not very convincing.
The US, working as part of the UN and helping to enforce its resolutions could have strengthened the UN. Applying pressure to get the Iraq to obey the resolutions was right, but once that showed results it was wrong to go on with that war. But apparently the USA aren't interested in a strong UN enforcing international law anyway, they prefer sending in their army enforcing their law.
We are the last remaining "superpower", and as a sort of 'parent' to the world,
This shows exactly the arrogant stance of the USA toward the world. Get it into your head, that other countries don't consider themselves as toddlers needing a "parent" to guide their way. I don't see how that contradicts the concept that the strong should help the weak. If you help someone (because you have the means to), do you also tell him how he has to lead his life, and if that doesn't help beat some sense into him?
A chemical weapons factory is a little harder to smuggle into a foreign country,
Sure, if independent experts may properly examine that evidence
This is not censorship, it's restricting minors access to such games. If that is justified and done in an efficient way is up for discussion.
The german constitution allows banning any party that is against this constitution and which intents to weaken or undermine it (maybe there's a similar clause in other constitutions too). That clause was also used against a communist party once, and is generally considered against extremist (left and right) parties.
Yes, it is forbidden to display swastikas, it's also forbidden to misrepresent germanys past. Those swastikas are are usually used to convince people that Hitler had all the right ideas and that we should get back to those "good old times", which, among other things, is against the constitution. Also the swastikas were outlawed to distinct post-war-germany from the 3rd Reich.
The "historical context"-part is necessary to allow depicting of nazis in historical contexts, like in history books, for educational use, in movies about the Nazi-times and exhibitions. There's no political gatherings disguising as "historical meetings" or political magazines coming along as "historical information leaflets".
In fact forbidding swastikas does help to reduce the spread of neo-nazism in germany. Public display of swastikas will always lead to public awareness and generally arouse more anti-nazi sentiments than pro-nazi. Were swastikas allowed the issue would have probably been muddied down, and that would have helped to spread nazi-memes under the disguise of "nordic ideals" or similar nonsense.
The most important law against neo-nazism IMO is that the german history in WWII may not be misrepresented. This makes it impossible to misrepresent the nazis as innocents and to deny the existence of concentration camps.
What really upsets the people is, that the US government simply started this war without presenting convincing reasons that it is necessary and justified. Also the US government put themselves above international agreements, weakening the UN in the process. They basically told anyone of different opinion to go fuck themselves. This is the behaviour of the biggest bully on the schoolyard and it is perceived as such. Bush wanted to have his war, he escalated the conflict and he started it, and noone, not the inspectors findings (or lack of them) nor the UN could get him off this course.
And no, it really won't change much if WMD are found now. Most people would probably think that it's fabricated evidence to justify that war after it started (like in those film scenes where the corrupt policemen raid an innocents house and drop some drugs in a corner to justify their doing so, this is not about saddam being innocent, it's about the role modell those people will liken the US to). Also G.W. Bush already demonstrated, that he doesn't need evidence to start a war, aparently "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to countries, it was replaced by "who is not with us is against us" recently.
And while the US probably should have gone against Saddam 12 years ago (a lot of people didn't understand why they did not) the situation today has changed, the Iraq under Saddam and under UN surveillance was under control and no threat to its neighbours. Even the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator doesn't justify starting a war either. That cleaning up is still a war, and one that is probably creating more problems than it solves.
Well, there is a specialized distribution channel, kind of: pirating. That 'restricted list' won't keep any game out of the hands (or computer) of any child determined to have it. But it will prevent parents from giving it to their child as a christmas present or somesuch.
And while shops could sell the game 'under the counter' (i.e. not display it publicly but sell it to any adult who asks for it) only some specialized games-stores do that in reality (and they're nearly extinct). The really big shops like 'Media-markt' (big stores-chain for electronic/electrical consumer products and entertainment media) and 'Saturn' (similar) don't want the hassle and simply don't sell restricted games.
The interesting thing here was the trend! The survey was focusing on Linux developers (developers involved in Linux developement), and so the "sample" was obviously not representative for developers worldwide, but hopefully it was representative for developers involved in Linux developement. So it's not surprising that a pretty high number (40%) of those focus primarily on Linux while 50% focus primarily on Windows.
The interesting part was, that the developers were also asked, what they would focus on in the future. The answer was, that in the future there'd be 50% focusing on Linux and 40% on Windows. So in the future there'll be a shift of focus towards Linux-developement, at least among the 400 developers surveyed.
Does this tell anything about how many developers worldwide will shift their focus towards Linux-development? Well if you take that 10% increase times the number of people worldwide involved with Linux-development (which the sample is supposed to represent) then you get an absolute number. You're missing the people not yet involved in Linux-development but focusing on it next year, and you're also missing job-starters who immediatley focus on Linux vs. jobstarters immediately focusing on Windows. So it's only a lower bound. But at least the absolute number of Linux-focused developers is on the rise, and if the "job-starters-effect" shows similar trends or is at least not canceling out the observed trend, then the percentage of developers focusing on Linux is also on the rise.
Interestingly the same survey next year (with a new sample) might still come up with the 40% for Linux and 50% for Windows numbers while the projections still hold true. Now how's that? Well the survey (or at least the numbers presented) does not reflect the number of developers who will become involved in Linux-development (so they end up in the next surveyed and "sampled" group) but still focus primarily on Windows (so they add to the 50% Windows-focused group).
Hmm, it's really easy to do some funny things with statistics.
Unix already has a WOFS;
/dev/null
it's accessed via
They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.
But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?
So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.
This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.
So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.
This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?
Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved
Quite a few of these are European.
And most of these Europeans in the coalition (and other coalition members too) were "persuaded" (german) by the US leveraging their economical power over these countries. This persuading doesn't do these countries much good and even hurts democratic values. But then the current US-government doesn't even care about the all that democracy stuff in the USA. But that should be no surprise, considering how G.W. Bush became president.
Well, it seems the US government isn't too comfortable with that and tries (german link) to make (german link) the EU abandon that project. Naturally the EU doesn't like depending on a US-monopoly for such an important system.
When you're at the south pole then any movement (except maybe jumping up) is "inching closer" to the north pole.
I mean: the intention of Microsofts shared source (ensure that MS can make money of the software forever and keep total control) and the GPL (make sure that everyone can use it, change it and even derived versions for free) is as different as can be. So any move of MS that makes shared source a little less restrictive is "inching" towards the GPL, but since they're miles apart an inch doesn't change much in the larger picture.
What exactly can the USDOJ do to stop this?
Simple: just stop Microsoft from selling Windows. Then all Windows copies on the market are pirated copies and thus easy to identify.
If there is a real chance for SCO to win that lawsuit, or at least settle in the region of a billion dollars, then SCO is worth that billion dollars. If the shareholders think that's the case they simply shouldn't sell their shares for less than what they are worth. If enough shareholders think that way the price of the shares will go up until it reflects the value of SCO including any money from the lawsuit (or at least what the majority of people think what the value is).
At least that's how it's supposed to work. If the majority of shareholders don't know the value of their shares they deserve to be screwed, and with what little money they get for their shares they could buy some nice land on the moon. The obvious problem here is figuring out what SCO is worth and after that figuring out what everyone else thinks SCO is worth. But that's what the whole shareholder-business is all about.
I mean: this has been around for so long, everyone should know it by now. That is why so many reactions are what they are. Sure it is a security hole, but a very obvious one, so why post a big article about it? Every sysadmin should know about it and about the relevant security measures anyway.
The big picture is that most admins assume that noone will boldly open the computer case and simply attach the disk to an other computer, and that there's a lot of admins who also assume that noone will fiddle around with the boot sequence to gain unauthorized access. They basically trust the person who sits in front of the computer.
So the fundamental question is: how much do you trust the person in front of the computer and how much effort are you going to invest to secure the machines against their unauthorized access.
For me yawning also works for pressure adjustment (don't know the english term): it makes my ears 'pop' (yeah i learned scuba diving and know of other ways too, but yawning also works for me). Sitting in a plane i wondered if you couldn't help people by making them yawn during starting and landing. This might work especially well with babies, since you can't explain to them how to adjust the pressure, but you might make them yawn by yawning in front of them.
The USA's was supposed to "screw" Microsoft, because Microsoft so blatantly screws their competitors and their customers. But it wasn't to be, Mr. G. W. Bush announced, even before he cheated his way into the white house, that Microsoft would get off easily and so it happened. So the USA decided not to apply their own laws to get a grip on Microsofts monopolistic bullying, and now you're complaining when other countries don't let Microsoft as easy off the hook as the USA? The EU would probably benefit more from regulating the MS-monopoly than the USA, but how is that a reason not to apply EU law in this case?
Sounds like normal sysadmin work required to apply a patch, only a good sysadmin would also try to get an idea what those scripts and patches will do to his system before he applies them.
... manually copying files wow, that's a hard one, and even run scripts, ooof and in the right order too (which is probably written in some README file anyway). Did i miss the irony in your post?
Download and extract a patch, what a horror! Then making a backup, a feat, never attempted before
Many good sysadmins might prefer it that way (copying and running scripts by hand), because then they know what happens, and how to undo it, while with some pushbutton-fully-automated update it's much harder to figure out what's going on.