Still, this sounds like its being misused, tracking them like animals. They are human beings, and this violates their human rights to improper search. You would not want a police officer to be able to access your medical or personal information whenever they want - so why should the homeless be denied that?
I believe the government has the legal right to ask for personal information before giving them HAND OUTS, which is exactly what homeless shelters are. I'm saying its a bad thing, but call it what it is. The government won't give welfare to someone without having a way of tracking them, via a mailbox, name, SSN, etc. If they don't want to be tracked, don't go with the handouts.
Speaking of which, many of the current government programs are not intended to HELP the problem, but intended to keep them where the are. The government just wants as many people as possible depending on it. This is why the Constitution did not say what the government SHOULD be doing, but explicitly said what it should NOT be doing. This is a way of getting around that, and why BIG government is bad.
Did anything interesting happen yesterday on this? Did killing the domain really prevent the worm from doing any damage? I sort of expected an internet slowdown (ie slammer), but didn't notice anything.
It comes down to where you think human life begins - in my opinion (and no doubt, not yours), human life begins at the point where the fetus can survive on its own. Until then, it's a parasite, and the host should be able to deal with it as the host sees fit.
A 6 week old fetus cannot survive long on its own. A 10 month old baby cannot survive long on its own. A 5 year old child would be very lucky to survive long on its own.
I believe all three of these hypothetical humans are people, regardless of whether or not its inside someone else or not.
Just something to think about....
PS-I'd like to see you 'survive on your own', ie grow your own food, find your own water, speak to no one else, etc. Oh, and while your at it, stop breathing, because the trees are creating that oxygen not you.
An interesting idea would be something along the lines of a 'gold standard' for MMORPGs. Let's say ou pay $20*/month for the subscription, then the company says 'Any money you find in the game, we are willing you pay for.' IE you kill a monster and get $.10. You can then go to a merchant in the game and deposit $.10 into a real money account.
The company would have to be very careful how much money spawns/player, but you could get some extremely interesting econmies out of this model if anyone chose to persue it.
*Yes $20 is high, but if you can make real money from the game...
Haha, way to mod him up rather than respond...thus/.ing him exactly as he didn't ask. Here is the text:
Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Copyright 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain. Permission granted to copy and reproduce in any medium.
2003-08-05T14:01:59-0400
800-238-9007 / 274040 / The SCO Group
Called in. There is a queue to get to an operator.
2003-08-05T14:06:16-0400
Opening remarks, Blake Stowell.
Stowell: Today, McBride and Sontag.
2003-08-05T14:06:56-0400
McBride:
Yesterday, SCO filed a legal action against the SCO Group...
Purpose of this call is to comment on these actions.
Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we have been saying all along:
Linux developers are unable/unwilling to screen code.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim / obfuscated code
from System 5.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains derivative code...
Some of those companies (IBM / Sequent) have had their licenses terminated.
Red Hat claims we have not shown examples of infringing code.
This claim is simply not true... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
Red Hat is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.
Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business.
We suggest that Red Hat has adopted a faulty business model.... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement...
Quotes from GPL Section 7, distributors may need to stop distributing.
It has no control to prevent infringing code from going into Linux.
If infringing code goes in, then Red Hat must stop shipping.
This is the problem with Red Hat's business model.
Red Hat has established $1 million fund.
SCO is not suing developers, just their employers.
We suggest that Red Hat needs to increase the size of the fund.
Over 2.5 million servers running linux kernel 2.4.
Red Hat thinks that SCO should show them every line of infringing code.
Red Hat thinks that they can... just remove the infringing code.
What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet.
"don't ask, don't tell" policy.... important debate...
proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.
Rolling out licenses to run SCO IP in binary form only.
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only,
customers also comply with the GPL.
2003-08-05T14:15:00-0400
Assemble roster for Q and A.
#1 Lee Gomez, Wall Street Journal
Q: Why don't you release the examples of infringement?
A: Actually, We have been releasing them.
Q: Are they on your web site?
A: NUMA, RCU, are direct violations.
Q: Do you have specific examples?
A: We've been showing?
Q: Publically available, to anyone?
A: Absolutely.
A: The minute we open it up, we can't restrict it in the future.
A: Over 100 people under NDA.
Q: Can you make available a list of people?
A: I have to go back to my PR team?
Q: Linux/open source advocates?
A: I don't remember his name
Chris: I don't remember his name but I can provide that to you.
#2 David Becker, CNET
Q: Terms of the new license?
A: Chris, comment on that?
Chris: single cpu, $699, October 15, after which it will climb to a higher price
Chris: contract their SCO representative
#3 M??? Greenmeyer, e-week
Q: Letter about possible global resolution.
What were you referring to?
A: We had those discussions... now we're going to t
The article said that looking straight on, you couldn't see it, but looking at an angle you can. If that's not a psuedo-hologram, then I don't know what is.
Unfortunately, IMO, days of Republicans *truly* saving us from bills in the long are a bygone relic of the 80's. Even there it's debatable.
Maybe. Bush is trying to appeal to left-wing voters by increasing spending on government programs. The Senate seems to be bending over for him, but at least the House Republicans are putting up a fight, and actually fighting/stopping some of the ridiculous spending.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, Lincoln DID declare war. What happened at Ft. Sumter was only a secession, not a declaration of war. Lincoln pretty much said "You can't do that" and then declared war. Secession was essentially an open invitation to war, but wasn't actually a declaration as I understand it.
This reminds me of something a friend once told me. He said if he ruled the world, he would only have two laws:
1. No one can have a gun except for him. 2. Wearing blue is punishable by death.
The idea is to never enforce rule #2, unless someone is an enemy, then you can kill him and say, 'Well he was wearing blue, and that is clearly punishable by death.'
I'll leave it to you to find the similarities here...
I'd say there is a significant possibility that the Pentagon's 'terms and conditions' will be something like:
"If you correctly predict a significant terrorist attack, expect a full investigation into your trade."
I for one don't have a problem with this. If you got lucky, then you pick up your $10,000, FBI does a background check on you, and its all over. If Al'Qaeda tries to do this, we uncover a few terrorists. There is no privacy issue here. No one is forcing you to trade on this market.
Did you read the article? Or one of many posts mentioning the German system of a stock-market like trading on who will be elected? Economic laws don't apply to politics, but free market still works.
And no, they don't have full information. Neither do stock traders.
Slashdot Mirror
We need a "+1, fucking cool"
Can't store electricity? What do you mean by that?
Do you mean storing charge? We have capacitors.
Do you mean storing energy in a form that will easily produce electricity? We have batteries.
Electricity is moving electrons. You can't really store it, just as you can't really store wind.
I believe the government has the legal right to ask for personal information before giving them HAND OUTS, which is exactly what homeless shelters are. I'm saying its a bad thing, but call it what it is. The government won't give welfare to someone without having a way of tracking them, via a mailbox, name, SSN, etc. If they don't want to be tracked, don't go with the handouts.
Speaking of which, many of the current government programs are not intended to HELP the problem, but intended to keep them where the are. The government just wants as many people as possible depending on it. This is why the Constitution did not say what the government SHOULD be doing, but explicitly said what it should NOT be doing. This is a way of getting around that, and why BIG government is bad.
</semi-off topic rant>
Did anything interesting happen yesterday on this? Did killing the domain really prevent the worm from doing any damage? I sort of expected an internet slowdown (ie slammer), but didn't notice anything.
A 6 week old fetus cannot survive long on its own.
A 10 month old baby cannot survive long on its own.
A 5 year old child would be very lucky to survive long on its own.
I believe all three of these hypothetical humans are people, regardless of whether or not its inside someone else or not.
Just something to think about....
PS-I'd like to see you 'survive on your own', ie grow your own food, find your own water, speak to no one else, etc. Oh, and while your at it, stop breathing, because the trees are creating that oxygen not you.
An interesting idea would be something along the lines of a 'gold standard' for MMORPGs. Let's say ou pay $20*/month for the subscription, then the company says 'Any money you find in the game, we are willing you pay for.' IE you kill a monster and get $.10. You can then go to a merchant in the game and deposit $.10 into a real money account.
The company would have to be very careful how much money spawns/player, but you could get some extremely interesting econmies out of this model if anyone chose to persue it.
*Yes $20 is high, but if you can make real money from the game...
Hahahaha
/. for a long time
One of the funniest things I've heard on
Haha, way to mod him up rather than respond...thus /.ing him exactly as he didn't ask. Here is the text:
... ...
... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement ...
... just remove the infringing code.
... important debate ...
... now we're going to t
Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
Copyright 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain.
Permission granted to copy and reproduce in any medium.
2003-08-05T14:01:59-0400
800-238-9007 / 274040 / The SCO Group
Called in. There is a queue to get to an operator.
2003-08-05T14:06:16-0400
Opening remarks, Blake Stowell.
Stowell: Today, McBride and Sontag.
2003-08-05T14:06:56-0400
McBride:
Yesterday, SCO filed a legal action against the SCO Group
Purpose of this call is to comment on these actions.
Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we have been saying all along:
Linux developers are unable/unwilling to screen code.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim / obfuscated code
from System 5.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains derivative code
Some of those companies (IBM / Sequent) have had their licenses terminated.
Red Hat claims we have not shown examples of infringing code.
This claim is simply not true
Red Hat is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.
Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business.
We suggest that Red Hat has adopted a faulty business model.
Quotes from GPL Section 7, distributors may need to stop distributing.
It has no control to prevent infringing code from going into Linux.
If infringing code goes in, then Red Hat must stop shipping.
This is the problem with Red Hat's business model.
Red Hat has established $1 million fund.
SCO is not suing developers, just their employers.
We suggest that Red Hat needs to increase the size of the fund.
Over 2.5 million servers running linux kernel 2.4.
Red Hat thinks that SCO should show them every line of infringing code.
Red Hat thinks that they can
What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet.
"don't ask, don't tell" policy.
proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.
Rolling out licenses to run SCO IP in binary form only.
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only,
customers also comply with the GPL.
2003-08-05T14:15:00-0400
Assemble roster for Q and A.
#1 Lee Gomez, Wall Street Journal
Q: Why don't you release the examples of infringement?
A: Actually, We have been releasing them.
Q: Are they on your web site?
A: NUMA, RCU, are direct violations.
Q: Do you have specific examples?
A: We've been showing?
Q: Publically available, to anyone?
A: Absolutely.
A: The minute we open it up, we can't restrict it in the future.
A: Over 100 people under NDA.
Q: Can you make available a list of people?
A: I have to go back to my PR team?
Q: Linux/open source advocates?
A: I don't remember his name
Chris: I don't remember his name but I can provide that to you.
#2 David Becker, CNET
Q: Terms of the new license?
A: Chris, comment on that?
Chris: single cpu, $699, October 15, after which it will climb to a higher price
Chris: contract their SCO representative
#3 M??? Greenmeyer, e-week
Q: Letter about possible global resolution.
What were you referring to?
A: We had those discussions
I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black...but that just doesn't come close...
I just figured out how to stop judgement day, once and for all.
Patent the idea of robots launching nukes at us, destroying us all. When Skynet starts killing us, sue 'em into oblivion for infringing on your IP.
(OK maybe not once and for all, but for however long patents last)
The article said that looking straight on, you couldn't see it, but looking at an angle you can. If that's not a psuedo-hologram, then I don't know what is.
I think that is the funniest sig I have ever seen :)
Parent is not informative. Grandparent was not a troll. Neither is this.
Grandparent (obviously) meant Bush got more votes in Florida. Which he did, according to three legal vote counts.
In 1952, a new evil surfaced.
Now, in 2003...
Evil will battle evil.
Jesse Jackson vs. RIAA: Coming to a theatre near you.
I have no problem damning the CEO of the RIAA knowing nothing about him, other than the fact that he is the CEO of the RIAA.
:))
And yes, I'm a big conservative/Republican (listening to Rush Limbaugh right now
Yeah, Arabs HATE when you go in and liberate them from despotic rulers who rape/torture/kill their own citizens.
Maybe. Bush is trying to appeal to left-wing voters by increasing spending on government programs. The Senate seems to be bending over for him, but at least the House Republicans are putting up a fight, and actually fighting/stopping some of the ridiculous spending.
Wow, I didn't know Lincoln ever went into the little towns with a torch burning things...I didn't know he was a big fan of raping women, either.
Learn something new everyday...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, Lincoln DID declare war. What happened at Ft. Sumter was only a secession, not a declaration of war. Lincoln pretty much said "You can't do that" and then declared war. Secession was essentially an open invitation to war, but wasn't actually a declaration as I understand it.
This reminds me of something a friend once told me. He said if he ruled the world, he would only have two laws:
1. No one can have a gun except for him.
2. Wearing blue is punishable by death.
The idea is to never enforce rule #2, unless someone is an enemy, then you can kill him and say, 'Well he was wearing blue, and that is clearly punishable by death.'
I'll leave it to you to find the similarities here...
"Bush should not mess with Wall Street, he's already given everyone down there a headache."
Yeah, those Wall Street-types really hate when they get more of their own money back to invest in stocks...
I'd say there is a significant possibility that the Pentagon's 'terms and conditions' will be something like:
"If you correctly predict a significant terrorist attack, expect a full investigation into your trade."
I for one don't have a problem with this. If you got lucky, then you pick up your $10,000, FBI does a background check on you, and its all over. If Al'Qaeda tries to do this, we uncover a few terrorists. There is no privacy issue here. No one is forcing you to trade on this market.
Did you read the article? Or one of many posts mentioning the German system of a stock-market like trading on who will be elected? Economic laws don't apply to politics, but free market still works.
And no, they don't have full information. Neither do stock traders.
Kneejerk /. third-order: the second kneejerk was...
nevermind
Kneejerk /. response: its a government conspiracy to take away more of our rights.
/. mod response: he's right.
Kneejerk