Nobody is better of with simpler laws! Not big business, not politicians and not the lawyers. Just imagine, someone from the general public reads your policy or the law, and really understands it. Do you understand the potential dangers there?
No, simpler laws is in nobodies interest. At least not somebody who has something to say about it.
The slashdot community acts as if all the other denizens of the planet are other slashdotters.
This might come as a shock for you...
The slashdot community _consists_ of other denizens of the planet. So when German held Linuxtag is in the news, German, and Belgium, and French, and Swiss, and Czech, and Danish, and Dutch, Linux using slashdotters with an interest in politics at least feel entitled to an opinion.
Now that's all that stuff you see around your post.
The real testing being when this hits distros. I'll probably try it later, maybe even wait for.22
You said it's your home fileserver that you wanted to try it with, so i wouldn't expect disasters on your metal. But of course, if you want to be absolutely sure there let the masses test this and use it later.
Doesn't really matter. You can make yourself a custom kernel just to check your apps and services with NO_HZ. Then when you've identified the misbehaving processes you can fix them and start using your old kernel again.
Researchers have created the first computational model to track engine performance from one combustion cycle to the next for a new type of engine
And I think that we should find the new thing in the bold part of the quote (the "new type of engine" should probably read: "the first engine to work with our model"). I suppose the new thing could be the combination of "computational model" and "variable valves".
Think "patents" and you'll see the reasons for language like "Radical Engine Redesign".
Fantastic, you are moron number 46 who says exactly the same stupid thing. Post-'n'-run eh? Thing is, you DID read the posts above, or you wouldn't be speaking of "everyone going on and on...".
I have been using LZMA for some time now for things
Good choice. The Exhaustive Data Compressor Comparison for Linux won't be found in this article of course. And since the author tests exotic Windows software against stock linux tools in a rather amateurist way this isn't interesting for linux users.
Of course, real gun control laws in a country that's up to its armpits in weapons and filled to the gills with gunfreaks is like... outlawing bombs in Iraq. For the rest, I think you reap what you sow, and even if I don't quite know what you're sowing, it is clear you're reaping.
They won't care that shooters like Harris and Cho prepare for months and have no scruples with breaking the law.
No, no, no! You clearly do not understand the situation in countries that have strict laws on weapons, here (in the Netherlands) people just do not have easy access to weapons. If people like Harris and Cho crack like to did in the States, they won't go on a shooting spree, they'd throw themselves off a building or under a train.
Losev also published on his discoveries in German and British journals. In sixteen papers between 1924 and 1930 he comprehensively detailed the function of his LED.
Employee #1: Damn, that HR. They tortured me all morning over those stupid photocopies.
Employee #2: I warned you about that. Management has been asking questions about all that copypaper.
Employee #1: You did, eh? Well, could you also open the creamer then? They pulled my fingernails.
Strange, when i read the article, i got the impression the woman was singled out by a vindictive colleague who misused his position in the university to try to build a case against her. To me it sounded very much like harassment and very little like abusing resources.
But there's more in the friendly article: article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights says: "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." And European Court case law also says "telephone calls from business premises are prima facie covered by the notions of 'private life' and 'correspondence' for the purposes of Article 8.". And, OF COURSE, people need to be able to contact home, when at work, for all the obvious reasons. Now, if you were talking of downloading porn, i'd agree with you but this isn't simply a case of abusing company resources.
Uncredibly, you used the word "reasonable" twice and don't seem to understand what it means.
So, i'll explain. Reasonable means that the woman (of course) was allowed to phone home and stuff, using company (or in this case university) equipment. And reasonable also means that other employees don't go redialing phonenumbers you just called to check upon them. And reading other peoples' faxes usually is called unreasonable.
On a sidenote, to me this really jumped out:
"But the court is wrong. At least in any reasonable, non-lawyer, interpretation of the law."
Are there maybe words for this kind of interpretation of the law? As in vigilante law?
Bah, and you actually give the impression you haven't read the article. Because, you entirely seem to miss these important details (FTA):
"According to the complaint, the woman's e-mail, phone, Internet, and fax usage were all monitored by the Deputy Principal (DP) of the college, who appears to have taken a sharp dislike to her."
And:
"The woman alleged that the DP began a campaign back in 1999 to discredit her. This campaign involved phone calls to numbers that the applicant had called in an attempt to find out who she had been speaking with, and apparently extended even to reading faxes that she sent to her solicitors from the office."
So that is very different from "only monitoring communications", as you claim the article "explicitly states". The big, obvious, difference here is, that the deputy general singled out this woman for his campaign, which (if i read the article correctly) might have taken quite a while.
"I know people on Slashdot don't like to hear this, but I don't have any problem with this at all."
Sure, but I have a problem with people not reading the article and then posting strong opinions about it, not with strong opinions.
I really don't agree with you, and i'm sure it never was Michael Bueschs' intention to humiliate that poor developer that used his code. You and many other desperately focus on the "initial contact" and cannot even consider the world of scorn and hatred Micheal was treated with when he posted. To me the way Theo (inhuman) de Raadt and others responded amounts to insult on top of injury, to you it apparently is what he asked for. And, how you can consider using someone's code in the way it was done a "minor thing"? I'd certainly rethink that part of your reply.
Slashdot Mirror
Simplify the legal system? Are you totally mad?
Nobody is better of with simpler laws! Not big business, not politicians and not the lawyers. Just imagine, someone from the general public reads your policy or the law, and really understands it. Do you understand the potential dangers there?
No, simpler laws is in nobodies interest. At least not somebody who has something to say about it.
The slashdot community _consists_ of other denizens of the planet. So when German held Linuxtag is in the news, German, and Belgium, and French, and Swiss, and Czech, and Danish, and Dutch, Linux using slashdotters with an interest in politics at least feel entitled to an opinion.
Now that's all that stuff you see around your post.
I don't mind a bit of excitement, now and then.
Now that IS serious. Have you read anything that would suggest such problems exists, or is this simply the most terrible thing you could think of?
Doesn't really matter. You can make yourself a custom kernel just to check your apps and services with NO_HZ. Then when you've identified the misbehaving processes you can fix them and start using your old kernel again.
VON-MAN picks up his English dictionary and -again- looks up "insightful". Phew, it isn't me.
Sure, it's all just words, man.
And I think that we should find the new thing in the bold part of the quote (the "new type of engine" should probably read: "the first engine to work with our model"). I suppose the new thing could be the combination of "computational model" and "variable valves".
Think "patents" and you'll see the reasons for language like "Radical Engine Redesign".
What do you call it?
You tell them, catmistake! And when you're met the girls I'll introduce you to something even better!
*women*
But please, I'll do the talking.
Fantastic, you are moron number 46 who says exactly the same stupid thing. Post-'n'-run eh? Thing is, you DID read the posts above, or you wouldn't be speaking of "everyone going on and on...".
Are you drunk?
Well, they've paid for it so it is not too unreasonable. Besides, I thought big business allready owned US politics.
Try this http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8051 article for a linux slant.
No, no, no! You clearly do not understand the situation in countries that have strict laws on weapons, here (in the Netherlands) people just do not have easy access to weapons. If people like Harris and Cho crack like to did in the States, they won't go on a shooting spree, they'd throw themselves off a building or under a train.
Get a grip on yourself man. You're just not part of the vast majority of people.
You _really_ should read the article, before you're off to China.
At the coffee machine:
Employee #1: Damn, that HR. They tortured me all morning over those stupid photocopies.
Employee #2: I warned you about that. Management has been asking questions about all that copypaper.
Employee #1: You did, eh? Well, could you also open the creamer then? They pulled my fingernails.
OT: I think the Laurence J. Peter said is better: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
Strange, when i read the article, i got the impression the woman was singled out by a vindictive colleague who misused his position in the university to try to build a case against her. To me it sounded very much like harassment and very little like abusing resources.
But there's more in the friendly article: article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights says: "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." And European Court case law also says "telephone calls from business premises are prima facie covered by the notions of 'private life' and 'correspondence' for the purposes of Article 8.".
And, OF COURSE, people need to be able to contact home, when at work, for all the obvious reasons. Now, if you were talking of downloading porn, i'd agree with you but this isn't simply a case of abusing company resources.
Uncredibly, you used the word "reasonable" twice and don't seem to understand what it means.
So, i'll explain. Reasonable means that the woman (of course) was allowed to phone home and stuff, using company (or in this case university) equipment. And reasonable also means that other employees don't go redialing phonenumbers you just called to check upon them. And reading other peoples' faxes usually is called unreasonable.
On a sidenote, to me this really jumped out:
"But the court is wrong. At least in any reasonable, non-lawyer, interpretation of the law."
Are there maybe words for this kind of interpretation of the law? As in vigilante law?
And: So that is very different from "only monitoring communications", as you claim the article "explicitly states". The big, obvious, difference here is, that the deputy general singled out this woman for his campaign, which (if i read the article correctly) might have taken quite a while.
"I know people on Slashdot don't like to hear this, but I don't have any problem with this at all."
Sure, but I have a problem with people not reading the article and then posting strong opinions about it, not with strong opinions.
I really don't agree with you, and i'm sure it never was Michael Bueschs' intention to humiliate that poor developer that used his code. You and many other desperately focus on the "initial contact" and cannot even consider the world of scorn and hatred Micheal was treated with when he posted. To me the way Theo (inhuman) de Raadt and others responded amounts to insult on top of injury, to you it apparently is what he asked for. And, how you can consider using someone's code in the way it was done a "minor thing"? I'd certainly rethink that part of your reply.