He's THE guy who understands the possibility of a web OS that runs entirely on Google servers and serves out content, files, etc. to users using XMLHTTP and maybe even XUL (that would be awesome for Firefox). I totally agree with this guy's comments too.
That's an interesting vision for sure... and it has some intriguing possibilities associated with it. For example, I like the idea of being able to go to a friend's place, log on using his computer, and get my desktop, with all my applications, data, etc., available. And in theory all that is possible with some sort of distributed / Web OS.
But I think there are still network issues (latency and reliability, mainly) that will keep it from being a reality anytime soon.
Historically speaking, I'd say I've been most productive using OS/2. I don't use it much these days however, and spend most of my time now using either Linux or Windows.
Between Linux and Windows, I'd say I find Linux more productive, if for no other reason that the fact that it has a proper shell (for the sake of argument, I'm assuming "pure" os'es not Windows + Cygwin, etc.).
That said, I do miss Textpad and a few other Win only programs when I'm working on a Linux box.
but it's not something reasonable--the expectation that you can get on a plane without ID (
First of all, it's not unreasonable. Me having an ID or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I'm a "bad guy" (terrorist, hijacker, whatever). I could have a fake ID, or even a perfectly legit ID, and no record of suspicious activity... in either case, you have NO way of telling - from my ID - whether I'm up to no good or not.
And anyway, the real issue here isn't about the ID. The airlines should be free to implement such a policy (or not) based on their own criteria... the real issue here is the notion that the United States has secret laws, that we're all expected to obey, but can't even see. That is so totally abhorrent to the idea of a "free country" that it's ridiculous. Secret laws might be OK in some fascist / totalitarian regime, but they are most certainly not OK in the USA.
Is that an old saying, or something you just made up and called old so it would have more gravitas? It can't be that old a saying, since it refers to patents.
It's at least two or three days old, cause that's when I saw it on Slashdot the first time.:-)
I don't actually know how old the saying is, and I claim no credit for inventing it. Hopefully the other guy who said it here on/. will show up in this conversation and clarify it's origin.
Maybe you would be crying your eyes over if you had this really cool non-generalistic invention that you didn't get credit ($$$) for. I'm against software patents, but blocking patents altogether seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
You don't need a patent to make $$$. Like the old saying says - "You don't need a patent on bread to make a living as a baker."
Hire a money grubbing, self-centered lawyer for your governor and see what happens in your state!
I have two words for you: "Mike Easley."
Being a citizen of North Carolina, I can pretty much say that I feel your pain.
It's not going to get any better though, until "We The People" collectively decide that we're tired of the b.s., recognize that we are sovereign individuals and that the government works FOR us - not the other way around - and do something about it.
I say we need to kick the corrupt, power-hungry, greedy, career politicans to the curb. But that's just me...
Come May 13 (and it cannot come soon enough), "Star Trek" will be history. Making Trek references everywhere will quickly become as quaint and passe as making "Buck Rogers" references.
That's Ok, since the BBC is bringing back Doctor Who, we can replace all those Trek and Buck Rogers references with Whovian references...
Wow. The perception of a threat of someone carrying a gun to blow me away is there, that doesn't make it OK to keep law-abiding citizens from owning guns (notice LAW-ABIDING -- criminals will already have them). The perception of a threat of someone carrying a BASEBALL bat to beat me senseless exists too. There are lots of perceived threats that exist that don't necessarily materialize.
Right, but none of that has anything to do with what I said. My point was that the perceived threat (of someone else getting the patent first) does have an effect on the behavior of other potential inventors. An analogy would be you choosing to carry a gun for self-defense, due to the perceived threat of the guy with the baseball bat.
It's also highly unlikely that two individuals have the same idea at the SAME TIME. Even the same day is unlikely. First one to patent it gets it. First come, first serve.
The exact timing isn't really the issue, it's the independence. If you have an idea, and I have the same idea independently, then it either belongs to either of us, or neither of us. Just because your patent application gets to DC first doesn't mean you should have a monopoly on the idea now.
Regarding sovereign individuals, please show me a single individual who is sovereign.
Look in the mirror.
If you take out the word "sovereign" from your reply, then it's just wrong for the government to take property from individuals.
It IS wrong for the government to take property from individuals. 100% wrong. You almost couldn't make up an idea what's MORE wrong.
If this were the case, you wouldn't have a lot of the roads and municipalities that exist because there are always a few people who don't want to sell.
Yeah, and? It's their property, if they don't want to sell then you can take your road somewhere else. Or you can up your buying price. Most people DO have a price, in reality. Price is too high you say? I say that's the free market at work, deal with it.
The governmant CAN take property from individuals.
Well when they come to take mine, they better pack a lunch. And plenty of ammunition.
To take your "always" word along some more, it also confiscates and even sells homes and cars and other stuff seized from criminals. I see nothing wrong with that.
If the criminal got their "due process" then that's a different issue.
Furthermore, rights to property are already governed by the govenments. This is why people have titles and deeds to cars, land, etc...
If you own something, you own it. Titles are just a convenience. And there's no special reason they have to be regulated by the government. The only reason the government requires you to register your title(s) with them is so they can meddle in your life that much more.
Intellectual property is another form of property that the government gives sole ownership to an individual in the form of a patent.
Which means that if someone had/has the same idea independently, the goverment is depriving them of the use of their property. This is just as wrong as them coming and taking your house or your land.
Of course, you have loads and loads of stories at your fingertips that show the all large corporations do is sue the little guys out of business because they feel threatened, right?
Doesn't matter if I do or not. The perception of the threat is there, and that's all that matters.
And again, I'm not saying that we have zero innovation now (which would obviously be untrue), but I believe that innovation suffers due to the existence of patents. Patents are a bad idea if you believe in the idea of intellectual property anyway.
Since two people can have an idea at the same time, and independently of one another, we can only conclude that "intellectual property" is unique from physical property in that it can be shared in a way that physical property can't. I.e., I have the brick or you have the brick, we can't both physically posess it at the same time. But two people can have the same idea at the same time. So with the existence of patents, I stand to be denied the chance to use my property (the idea) if somebody else is awarded a patent on it, despite the fact that they had no particular claim to it belonging uniquely to them.
And since it's always wrong for the government to take property from sovereign individuals, patents are wrong in principle.
So patents are bad for business, and wrong in principle. Somebody remind me again why anybody is defending their existence?
otherwise they run the risk of releasing something or developing something and then years later some nitwit coming along and demanding millions of dollars from them for some detail he claims to have invented a decade ago. we've seen it multiple times.
That wouldn't be an issue if we just eliminated software patents altogether.
Like them or not, software patents encourage incredible innovation in the field.
No they don't. Software patents are an anathema to innovation. Think about the case of solo inventor who comes up with what he believes is a brilliant new concept in software. If he wants to start a new business, and take his idea to market, he has a few choices: file for a patent himself, or go to market without a patent. If he does the former, it's going to take considerable money and time, which he may not have. And even if he gets a patent on his invention, he still most likely can't win a protracted court battle with some multi-billion dollar behemoth of a corporation, if they feel threatened by his idea and decide to squash him out of business. If he goes to market without a patent, well... most of the above still applies. He can still easily be squashed out of business and sued into bankruptcy by EvilCorp.
Net-net, many people who have what could be a hugely profitable idea if developed, will choose to just sit on it, rather than take a chance on developing a business, fighting lawsuits, etc. In the best case, the solo inventor files for an receives a patent, and then sells it for a modest gain. Whooohoo, way to encourage innovation.
It works against big companies with huge research budgets as well. If I'm company A, and I am considering whether or not to invest X million dollars in research over the next Z years for something radically new... My motivation to do so is tempered by the possibility that competitor B is doing the exact same thing, without my knowledge.. and if they get their patent application in one day before mine, we're now shut out of the market for that idea, despite investing X million dollars in research. Whoohoo, way to encourage innovation. Patents make funding research an incredibly risky proposition.
Now of course we see that some innovation does occur, even though we have software patents. But my contention is that we would get a lot MORE innovation without - especially from small companies & solo inventor / researchers.
Bottom line, IMHO, we'd be better off eliminating software patents, and let companies compete on their execution, not on the basis of an artificial, government granted monopoly.
And remember, even in the absence of patents, you could still choose to keep your methods, ideas, etc. secret. Which means your competitors would have to spend money, time and effort to reverse engineer your product, giving you an advantage. And by being the innnovator, first to market, etc., you have some automatic advantages over the competition.
The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of funding education in the first place.
Now, with the federal funds gone, the individual states will have to decide if they want to make up that money in their school budgets. Which means it will be state leaders making important decisions about spending and taxes for kids in state X, not federal leaders. And the state leaders in state X are more accountable to the citizens of the state, which gives those citizens a (small) measure more control over the process.
How anybody can say this is bad, boggles the imagination. Maybe people in North Carolina want this, and people in Vermont don't (for example). Fine, each can have their way now. Likewise for every other state.
The more power / taxation / spending we move from the Federal government down to the State and Local governments the better. This has the effect of moving the decision making closer to the people it impacts, which gives them more control (ie, it's easier for an individual to affect the outcome of a race for County Commissioner, than for US Senate). Likewise, the more things are handled on a local level, the more we enable people with similar views to move into the same geographic region, and run things as they see fit, instead of having an all powerful Federal government issuing policies that will always leave a huge percentage of the population pissed off. (This applies not just to education spending of course, but pretty much everything).
Nitpick: not by the GPL, but by the Mozilla Public License. The two are similar, but not compatible. And the MPL is less readable... (source: cliking About Mozilla in my current browser, and
Nitpick: Mozilla is actually triple-licensed, and is available under the terms of the MPL, GPL and LGPL. See the Relicensing FAQ.
.NET supports many languages, and they can all "play nice", and interoperate (compare this to Java).
Java has the same ability. You can compile (in theory) any language into java bytecode and run it on a JVM, and integrate pretty much seamlessly with "regular" java code. Many other languages already have ports to the JVM, or were written specifically for the JVM. For examples of what I'm referring to, see: Groovy , Jacl, Jython, Nice, JRuby, and Rhino among others.
And since there is JNI, you can also combine Java with native C/C++ code as well.
Open Source might not exactly be a "career path." But it is, imho, an enabler - something that you can use to launch a business and, hopefully, profit from.
here is what I had to say in response to one comment somebody else made, regarding making money / feeding the family, and open-source.
and teachers need to read this book: Security Warrior. Only by learning the ways of your enemy (l337 hax0r k1dz) can you defeat them...
Seriously though, it seems like school IT staff are stretched pretty thin... maybe it wouldn't be asking so much to ask the teachers to take a little more responsibility in protecting important data that's in their posession?
Ricky was a young penguin, he had a heart of ice. Lived 0 to 255 and coded his fingers to the bone. Just barely got out of school, came from the edge of Stanford. Fought like a router so no one could take him down. He had no patents, oooh no good at home. He surfed the 'net a soldier and he fought the world alone And now it's
18 and live you got it 18 and live you know Your crime is time and it's 18 and live to go (repeat above)
TCP in his heartbeat, his veins burned HTTP. It kept his browser running but it never kept him clean. They say he loved Microsoft, ricky's the wild one. He married trouble and had a courtship with Bill. Bang bang shoot 'em up, the lawsuit never ends. You can't think of dying when RMS's your best friend And now it's
18 and live you got it 18 and live you know Your crime is time and it's 18 and live to go (repeat above)
Accidents will happen they all heard ricky say He fired his IPv6 to the wind that blew a segment away.
as well as male students being dragged out of class to the bathroom and being forced to shave with a disposable razor if they had any visible facial hair.
WTF!?!? PLEASE tell me that you just made that up... Man, if that really happened, that is some MAJOR bullshit. Good thing my highschool didn't have that policy.. I would have literally fought, kicking, punching, scratching, whatever, with anybody that tried to physically force me to shave against my will. That's just fucking absurd.
If I ever have kids in high-school, and something like that happens, I hope my kid decides to start swinging, and KTFO somebody.
Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.
If teachers and principals consider a drawing to be an arrestable offense (even if the drawing were in questionable taste), then it is not surprising that the First Amendment is little regarded in schools.
I heard an interview with the Sheriff / Chief of Police / Somebody from where that happened. It seems there is more too it than just the pictures. He said there had been a pattern of the one kid (the subject of the drawings) being bullied and threatened by the other kids (the ones doing the drawing). If that's true, then in this case, the intervention that took place might turn out to be be a good thing; depending on what happens to the kids in question.
Isn't that circumventing the purpose of the EPO? If there's a smokey fire in there and the firefighters have to enter the room and start spraying water around, won't a few machines glowing for four minutes after the EPO was pressed put them in danger of electrocution? Or force them to wait four minutes beore they can enter?
It's not so much that the firefighters spraying water are worried about getting electrocuted via current conducting through the water itself... it's more about worrying bout stumbling into a live wire that's hanging down from the ceiling, or cutting into a live wire with a vent saw, or getting caught up in one with a pike pole or something.
Having been a firefighter for somewhere around 15 years, I'd say that I for one would not be particularly concerned about the small UPS's. That's not to say that they *couldn't* pose a danger... just that relatively speaking, they'd be a minor concern.
The book Programming Interviews Exposed has a lot of info on some of the skills you might be asked to prove as part of an interview. I highly recommend this book to anybody who expects to be interviewing for a development job.
Even if you don't get asked the specific questions they speak of in the book, the concepts will be of value to you.
Slashdot Mirror
The Patriarchy will do whatever it can to keep down a smart, sophisticated woman.
Maybe, but what does that have to do with Carly Fiorina?
He's THE guy who understands the possibility of a web OS that runs entirely on Google servers and serves out content, files, etc. to users using XMLHTTP and maybe even XUL (that would be awesome for Firefox). I totally agree with this guy's comments too.
That's an interesting vision for sure... and it has some intriguing possibilities associated with it. For example, I like the idea of being able to go to a friend's place, log on using his computer, and get my desktop, with all my applications, data, etc., available. And in theory all that is possible with some sort of distributed / Web OS.
But I think there are still network issues (latency and reliability, mainly) that will keep it from being a reality anytime soon.
Historically speaking, I'd say I've been most productive using OS/2. I don't use it much these days however, and spend most of my time now using either Linux or Windows.
Between Linux and Windows, I'd say I find Linux more productive, if for no other reason that the fact that it has a proper shell (for the sake of argument, I'm assuming "pure" os'es not Windows + Cygwin, etc.).
That said, I do miss Textpad and a few other Win only programs when I'm working on a Linux box.
but it's not something reasonable--the expectation that you can get on a plane without ID (
First of all, it's not unreasonable. Me having an ID or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I'm a "bad guy" (terrorist, hijacker, whatever). I could have a fake ID, or even a perfectly legit ID, and no record of suspicious activity... in either case, you have NO way of telling - from my ID - whether I'm up to no good or not.
And anyway, the real issue here isn't about the ID. The airlines should be free to implement such a policy (or not) based on their own criteria... the real issue here is the notion that the United States has secret laws, that we're all expected to obey, but can't even see. That is so totally abhorrent to the idea of a "free country" that it's ridiculous. Secret laws might be OK in some fascist / totalitarian regime, but they are most certainly not OK in the USA.
Is that an old saying, or something you just made up and called old so it would have more gravitas? It can't be that old a saying, since it refers to patents.
:-)
/. will show up in this conversation and clarify it's origin.
It's at least two or three days old, cause that's when I saw it on Slashdot the first time.
I don't actually know how old the saying is, and I claim no credit for inventing it. Hopefully the other guy who said it here on
Maybe you would be crying your eyes over if you had this really cool non-generalistic invention that you didn't get credit ($$$) for.
I'm against software patents, but blocking patents altogether seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
You don't need a patent to make $$$. Like the old saying says - "You don't need a patent on bread to make a living as a baker."
Hire a money grubbing, self-centered lawyer for your governor and see what happens in your state!
I have two words for you: "Mike Easley."
Being a citizen of North Carolina, I can pretty much say that I feel your pain.
It's not going to get any better though, until "We The People" collectively decide that we're tired of the b.s., recognize that we are sovereign individuals and that the government works FOR us - not the other way around - and do something about it.
I say we need to kick the corrupt, power-hungry, greedy, career politicans to the curb. But that's just me...
Come May 13 (and it cannot come soon enough), "Star Trek" will be history. Making Trek references everywhere will quickly become as quaint and passe as making "Buck Rogers" references.
That's Ok, since the BBC is bringing back Doctor Who, we can replace all those Trek and Buck Rogers references with Whovian references...
Wow. The perception of a threat of someone carrying a gun to blow me away is there, that doesn't make it OK to keep law-abiding citizens from owning guns (notice LAW-ABIDING -- criminals will already have them). The perception of a threat of someone carrying a BASEBALL bat to beat me senseless exists too. There are lots of perceived threats that exist that don't necessarily materialize.
Right, but none of that has anything to do with what I said. My point was that the perceived threat (of someone else getting the patent first) does have an effect on the behavior of other potential inventors. An analogy would be you choosing to carry a gun for self-defense, due to the perceived threat of the guy with the baseball bat.
It's also highly unlikely that two individuals have the same idea at the SAME TIME. Even the same day is unlikely. First one to patent it gets it. First come, first serve.
The exact timing isn't really the issue, it's the independence. If you have an idea, and I have the same idea independently, then it either belongs to either of us, or neither of us. Just because your patent application gets to DC first doesn't mean you should have a monopoly on the idea now.
Regarding sovereign individuals, please show me a single individual who is sovereign.
Look in the mirror.
If you take out the word "sovereign" from your reply, then it's just wrong for the government to take property from individuals.
It IS wrong for the government to take property from individuals. 100% wrong. You almost couldn't make up an idea what's MORE wrong.
If this were the case, you wouldn't have a lot of the roads and municipalities that exist because there are always a few people who don't want to sell.
Yeah, and? It's their property, if they don't want to sell then you can take your road somewhere else. Or you can up your buying price. Most people DO have a price, in reality. Price is too high you say? I say that's the free market at work, deal with it.
The governmant CAN take property from individuals.
Well when they come to take mine, they better pack a lunch. And plenty of ammunition.
To take your "always" word along some more, it also confiscates and even sells homes and cars and other stuff seized from criminals. I see nothing wrong with that.
If the criminal got their "due process" then that's a different issue.
Furthermore, rights to property are already governed by the govenments. This is why people have titles and deeds to cars, land, etc...
If you own something, you own it. Titles are just a convenience. And there's no special reason they have to be regulated by the government. The only reason the government requires you to register your title(s) with them is so they can meddle in your life that much more.
Intellectual property is another form of property that the government gives sole ownership to an individual in the form of a patent.
Which means that if someone had/has the same idea independently, the goverment is depriving them of the use of their property. This is just as wrong as them coming and taking your house or your land.
Of course, you have loads and loads of stories at your fingertips that show the all large corporations do is sue the little guys out of business because they feel threatened, right?
Doesn't matter if I do or not. The perception of the threat is there, and that's all that matters.
And again, I'm not saying that we have zero innovation now (which would obviously be untrue), but I believe that innovation suffers due to the existence of patents. Patents are a bad idea if you believe in the idea of intellectual property anyway.
Since two people can have an idea at the same time, and independently of one another, we can only conclude that "intellectual property" is unique from physical property in that it can be shared in a way that physical property can't. I.e., I have the brick or you have the brick, we can't both physically posess it at the same time. But two people can have the same idea at the same time. So with the existence of patents, I stand to be denied the chance to use my property (the idea) if somebody else is awarded a patent on it, despite the fact that they had no particular claim to it belonging uniquely to them.
And since it's always wrong for the government to take property from sovereign individuals, patents are wrong in principle.
So patents are bad for business, and wrong in principle. Somebody remind me again why anybody is defending their existence?
otherwise they run the risk of releasing something or developing something and then years later some nitwit coming along and demanding millions of dollars from them for some detail he claims to have invented a decade ago. we've seen it multiple times.
That wouldn't be an issue if we just eliminated software patents altogether.
No they don't. Software patents are an anathema to innovation. Think about the case of solo inventor who comes up with what he believes is a brilliant new concept in software. If he wants to start a new business, and take his idea to market, he has a few choices: file for a patent himself, or go to market without a patent. If he does the former, it's going to take considerable money and time, which he may not have. And even if he gets a patent on his invention, he still most likely can't win a protracted court battle with some multi-billion dollar behemoth of a corporation, if they feel threatened by his idea and decide to squash him out of business. If he goes to market without a patent, well... most of the above still applies. He can still easily be squashed out of business and sued into bankruptcy by EvilCorp.
Net-net, many people who have what could be a hugely profitable idea if developed, will choose to just sit on it, rather than take a chance on developing a business, fighting lawsuits, etc. In the best case, the solo inventor files for an receives a patent, and then sells it for a modest gain. Whooohoo, way to encourage innovation.
It works against big companies with huge research budgets as well. If I'm company A, and I am considering whether or not to invest X million dollars in research over the next Z years for something radically new... My motivation to do so is tempered by the possibility that competitor B is doing the exact same thing, without my knowledge.. and if they get their patent application in one day before mine, we're now shut out of the market for that idea, despite investing X million dollars in research. Whoohoo, way to encourage innovation. Patents make funding research an incredibly risky proposition.
Now of course we see that some innovation does occur, even though we have software patents. But my contention is that we would get a lot MORE innovation without - especially from small companies & solo inventor / researchers.
Bottom line, IMHO, we'd be better off eliminating software patents, and let companies compete on their execution, not on the basis of an artificial, government granted monopoly.
And remember, even in the absence of patents, you could still choose to keep your methods, ideas, etc. secret. Which means your competitors would have to spend money, time and effort to reverse engineer your product, giving you an advantage. And by being the innnovator, first to market, etc., you have some automatic advantages over the competition.
The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of funding education in the first place.
Now, with the federal funds gone, the individual states will have to decide if they want to make up that money in their school budgets. Which means it will be state leaders making important decisions about spending and taxes for kids in state X, not federal leaders. And the state leaders in state X are more accountable to the citizens of the state, which gives those citizens a (small) measure more control over the process.
How anybody can say this is bad, boggles the imagination. Maybe people in North Carolina want this, and people in Vermont don't (for example). Fine, each can have their way now. Likewise for every other state.
The more power / taxation / spending we move from the Federal government down to the State and Local governments the better. This has the effect of moving the decision making closer to the people it impacts, which gives them more control (ie, it's easier for an individual to affect the outcome of a race for County Commissioner, than for US Senate). Likewise, the more things are handled on a local level, the more we enable people with similar views to move into the same geographic region, and run things as they see fit, instead of having an all powerful Federal government issuing policies that will always leave a huge percentage of the population pissed off. (This applies not just to education spending of course, but pretty much everything).
Dashboard
Nitpick: not by the GPL, but by the Mozilla Public License. The two are similar, but not compatible. And the MPL is less readable... (source: cliking About Mozilla in my current browser, and
Nitpick: Mozilla is actually triple-licensed, and is available under the terms of the MPL, GPL and LGPL. See the Relicensing FAQ.
.NET supports many languages, and they can all "play nice", and interoperate (compare this to Java).
Java has the same ability. You can compile (in theory) any language into java bytecode and run it on a JVM, and integrate pretty much seamlessly with "regular" java code. Many other languages already have ports to the JVM, or were written specifically for the JVM. For examples of what I'm referring to, see: Groovy , Jacl, Jython, Nice, JRuby, and Rhino among others.
And since there is JNI, you can also combine Java with native C/C++ code as well.
Open Source might not exactly be a "career path." But it is, imho, an enabler - something that you can use to launch a business and, hopefully, profit from.
here is what I had to say in response to one comment somebody else made, regarding making money / feeding the family, and open-source.
This IT Managers Journal article, or this book: Innovation Happens Elsewhere : Open Source as Business Strategy are also of interest on this topic, I think.
and teachers need to read this book: Security Warrior. Only by learning the ways of your enemy (l337 hax0r k1dz) can you defeat them...
Seriously though, it seems like school IT staff are stretched pretty thin... maybe it wouldn't be asking so much to ask the teachers to take a little more responsibility in protecting important data that's in their posession?
GNUStep LiveCD - the coolest live CD of them all. Boot this bad boy up and enjoy the experience...
Ricky was a young penguin, he had a heart of ice.
Lived 0 to 255 and coded his fingers to the bone.
Just barely got out of school, came from the edge of Stanford.
Fought like a router so no one could take him down.
He had no patents, oooh no good at home.
He surfed the 'net a soldier and he fought the world alone
And now it's
18 and live you got it
18 and live you know
Your crime is time and it's
18 and live to go
(repeat above)
TCP in his heartbeat, his veins burned HTTP.
It kept his browser running but it never kept him clean.
They say he loved Microsoft, ricky's the wild one.
He married trouble and had a courtship with Bill.
Bang bang shoot 'em up, the lawsuit never ends.
You can't think of dying when RMS's your best friend
And now it's
18 and live you got it
18 and live you know
Your crime is time and it's
18 and live to go
(repeat above)
Accidents will happen they all heard ricky say
He fired his IPv6 to the wind that blew a segment away.
as well as male students being dragged out of class to the bathroom and being forced to shave with a disposable razor if they had any visible facial hair.
WTF!?!? PLEASE tell me that you just made that up... Man, if that really happened, that is some MAJOR bullshit. Good thing my highschool didn't have that policy.. I would have literally fought, kicking, punching, scratching, whatever, with anybody that tried to physically force me to shave against my will. That's just fucking absurd.
If I ever have kids in high-school, and something like that happens, I hope my kid decides to start swinging, and KTFO somebody.
Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.
If teachers and principals consider a drawing to be an arrestable offense (even if the drawing were in questionable taste), then it is not surprising that the First Amendment is little regarded in schools.
I heard an interview with the Sheriff / Chief of Police / Somebody from where that happened. It seems there is more too it than just the pictures. He said there had been a pattern of the one kid (the subject of the drawings) being bullied and threatened by the other kids (the ones doing the drawing). If that's true, then in this case, the intervention that took place might turn out to be be a good thing; depending on what happens to the kids in question.
http://news.google.com/news?q=ben+goodger&btnG=Sea rch+News
Isn't that circumventing the purpose of the EPO? If there's a smokey fire in there and the firefighters have to enter the room and start spraying water around, won't a few machines glowing for four minutes after the EPO was pressed put them in danger of electrocution? Or force them to wait four minutes beore they can enter?
It's not so much that the firefighters spraying water are worried about getting electrocuted via current conducting through the water itself... it's more about worrying bout stumbling into a live wire that's hanging down from the ceiling, or cutting into a live wire with a vent saw, or getting caught up in one with a pike pole or something.
Having been a firefighter for somewhere around 15 years, I'd say that I for one would not be particularly concerned about the small UPS's. That's not to say that they *couldn't* pose a danger... just that relatively speaking, they'd be a minor concern.
The book Programming Interviews Exposed has a lot of info on some of the skills you might be asked to prove as part of an interview. I highly recommend this book to anybody who expects to be interviewing for a development job.
Even if you don't get asked the specific questions they speak of in the book, the concepts will be of value to you.