And when you're the last uninfected man in the world, YOU will be the monster. Not the mutant vampire zombies.
I personally agree with you, but unfortunately, this stuff isn't chiseled on stone tablets. A usage is right if enough people agree it's right, and agree what it means NOW. And those who don't agree, either learn and deal with it, or pedantically pretend they don't understand what people are saying.
If "explode" means that they'd have to prioritize cases and just dismiss the rest, then, yes I agree. A lot of that would probably no longer prosecuting major bank and stock fraud.
FTFY. After all, who better to benefit from a little slack than the 1%. They have everything else; it's only fair they get what they've been denied.
Anyway, sometimes the binaries and the sources are downloaded together. This happens a lot in single-tarball releases, for instance.
But yeah, more often, if you don't want the binaries, you can certainly avoid downloading them, or unpackaging them and running them if you did download them.
Source-only tarballs, for instance, or just source packages.
Of course, you still have to run the binaries of your operating system. And your toolchain.
After 15-20 minutes COL Pyle's wife who was already upset by having an enlisted serf in her house demanded that GM and his M&M stained kids leave.
Well, to be candid, that particular bit of the anecdote probably has less to do with "sysadmin as serf" and more to do with the fact that some senior officers' wives develop a psychotic fixation on rank and hierarchy... none of which are actually theirs, but makes all the difference in the universe to them.
Clearly, Mrs. Pyle thought she had invisible silver eagles on her shoulders. Without the benefit of officer military training and a career of working with officers and enlisteds of all ranks, and therefore having ABSOLUTELY no clue on how to interact with them on any terms other than rank and perceived priviledge.
It's a well-known and much-attested phenomenon.
The other bit... GM having to do a bit of moonlighting to set up the boss' PC? Well, most officers I came up with had enough clue not to press for that kind of stuff, but it's not forbidden by regulation or custom... and GM obviously didn't have much recourse to push back, since the chain of command is just that: COMMAND. Backed up with the threat of jail. There are very few jobs that can put you in federal prison for not doing your work, or resisting direction. This would be one of them.
Fair point, it seems. I can't imagine a wage-slave hourly cog actually investing any emotion in the fact they can't recruit GPP into the "tagged and traced free-range consumer" herd.
Maybe they're missing out on some kind of incentive bonus because GPP keeps refusing.
What Viagra can't do is increase bloodflow in the brain enough to disbelieve "traditional medicine". More's the shame... I know a lot of people who could use more cerebral circulation.
The problem is that the lack of a kill-switch gives incentive to steal a nice phone, no matter what it takes.
The response is to make the stolen phone remote-brickable, even after a factory-clean wipe.
The counter-response is to make sure the theft of the phone is never reported. And dead men tell no tales.
Of course, this means that the trackable live phone is in the hands of a murderer or an accessory-after-the-fact, so law enforcement has both incentive and means to pursue justice... so it's self-correcting, except for the whole "original victim is dead" part.
You will find conventional flow notation followed by most electrical engineers, and illustrated in most engineering textbooks. Electron flow is most often seen in introductory textbooks (this one included) and in the writings of professional scientists, especially solid-state physicists who are concerned with the actual motion of electrons in substances. These preferences are cultural, in the sense that certain groups of people have found it advantageous to envision electric current motion in certain ways.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_1/7.htmlConventional current tends to be an electrical engineering convention. Electron flow current is a physics conventional preference. Unsurprisingly, partisans of one often complain the other is wrong. This is fanboi-ism, no less than Apple partisans complaining that Windows is wrong.
Actually, I see the opportunity for armed border skirmishes betwen mutually hostile enclaves of corporate territory under a single roof as a great opportunity to sell popcorn.
"Best Buy... the Balkans right in your neighborhood!"
I understand your point, and it's fair to say this is not an attack on intellectual property in the same way that most civil societies don't absolutely forbid certain speech.
However, by an academic institution claiming ownership on an associate's speech, I would argue that a chilling effect is in play. Financial disincentive is a dangerous tool in the toolbox of the supressors of speech. Even if the intent in this case isn't explicitly censorship.
What's the difference between "you can't speak" and "you can speak, but you won't get your legal ownership of your speech"? Potentially, pretty slim.
As the data volume increases, as the processing power sifting the data also increases, as the connection patterns grow... the temptation will be to treat all the perceived signficance of those connections as precognition. We love to forecast, and modern forecasting is based on detailed analysis of huge amounts of data (the "business case" behind data mining).
So, how long before we get "preventative detention" for "probable future (terrorists|traitors|child molesters)"?
Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.
"And that's a small price to pay, as long as it it's them, not me. And it'll never be me. I'm a good American."
It's never "me" until suddenly it is.
The sad lesson of the past: the sad lessons of the past apply to everyone, but no one will believe it applies to them until reality proves it to them. People (rightly) complain about American exceptionalism, but exceptionalism applies to individuals and small self-identifying groups (e.g., "right-thinking patriots") as well.
Unless the character is backed up against an obstacle. In which case the camera will be placed between the obstacle and the back of the actor's head. And all you'll see is head. Nothing but the back of the head. In IMAX 3D!
Slashdot Mirror
He's such a good geneticist that he sequenced himself and his wife and PREDICTED that his daughter would be born with this syndrome.
No? What? You're saying that journalists can be WRONG? UNPOSSIBLE!
And when you're the last uninfected man in the world, YOU will be the monster. Not the mutant vampire zombies.
I personally agree with you, but unfortunately, this stuff isn't chiseled on stone tablets. A usage is right if enough people agree it's right, and agree what it means NOW. And those who don't agree, either learn and deal with it, or pedantically pretend they don't understand what people are saying.
No reads anymore. /. is no different.
tl;dr
Indeed.
If you've been handcuffed and finally get the keys, why would you put the cuffs back on, even if you still have the keys? Throw away those shackles.
If "explode" means that they'd have to prioritize cases and just dismiss the rest, then, yes I agree. A lot of that would probably no longer prosecuting major bank and stock fraud.
FTFY. After all, who better to benefit from a little slack than the 1%. They have everything else; it's only fair they get what they've been denied.
Where would they have gotten crabs?
Other than Ginger, I mean.
OK, stupid.
Well, it was your idea.
Anyway, sometimes the binaries and the sources are downloaded together. This happens a lot in single-tarball releases, for instance.
But yeah, more often, if you don't want the binaries, you can certainly avoid downloading them, or unpackaging them and running them if you did download them.
Source-only tarballs, for instance, or just source packages.
Of course, you still have to run the binaries of your operating system. And your toolchain.
But no one would ever corrupt those.
After 15-20 minutes COL Pyle's wife who was already upset by having an enlisted serf in her house demanded that GM and his M&M stained kids leave.
Well, to be candid, that particular bit of the anecdote probably has less to do with "sysadmin as serf" and more to do with the fact that some senior officers' wives develop a psychotic fixation on rank and hierarchy... none of which are actually theirs, but makes all the difference in the universe to them.
Clearly, Mrs. Pyle thought she had invisible silver eagles on her shoulders. Without the benefit of officer military training and a career of working with officers and enlisteds of all ranks, and therefore having ABSOLUTELY no clue on how to interact with them on any terms other than rank and perceived priviledge.
It's a well-known and much-attested phenomenon.
The other bit... GM having to do a bit of moonlighting to set up the boss' PC? Well, most officers I came up with had enough clue not to press for that kind of stuff, but it's not forbidden by regulation or custom... and GM obviously didn't have much recourse to push back, since the chain of command is just that: COMMAND. Backed up with the threat of jail. There are very few jobs that can put you in federal prison for not doing your work, or resisting direction. This would be one of them.
Unless it can be linked to beating the terrorists.
Well, we need to replace Gitmo. And the status of many of the inmates there could certainly be considered "permanent", so it would qualify.
Feh. The new-model Nazgul obviously already have airspace clearance there.
Fair point, it seems. I can't imagine a wage-slave hourly cog actually investing any emotion in the fact they can't recruit GPP into the "tagged and traced free-range consumer" herd.
Maybe they're missing out on some kind of incentive bonus because GPP keeps refusing.
What Viagra can't do is increase bloodflow in the brain enough to disbelieve "traditional medicine". More's the shame... I know a lot of people who could use more cerebral circulation.
Even in a land of the rule of law, "Silent enim leges inter arma."* The law falls silent among arms.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges
The problem is that the lack of a kill-switch gives incentive to steal a nice phone, no matter what it takes.
The response is to make the stolen phone remote-brickable, even after a factory-clean wipe.
The counter-response is to make sure the theft of the phone is never reported. And dead men tell no tales.
Of course, this means that the trackable live phone is in the hands of a murderer or an accessory-after-the-fact, so law enforcement has both incentive and means to pursue justice... so it's self-correcting, except for the whole "original victim is dead" part.
I'm developing a rule about standards: Idontgno's Standards Laws.
Which is why we have two systems: Conventional Current and Electron Flow. What you describe is electron flow.
Either can be used. Neither is superior to the other. Both work consistently, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T MIX THEM.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_1/7.htmlConventional current tends to be an electrical engineering convention. Electron flow current is a physics conventional preference. Unsurprisingly, partisans of one often complain the other is wrong. This is fanboi-ism, no less than Apple partisans complaining that Windows is wrong.
Actually, I see the opportunity for armed border skirmishes betwen mutually hostile enclaves of corporate territory under a single roof as a great opportunity to sell popcorn.
"Best Buy... the Balkans right in your neighborhood!"
But he'll make it work. Because he's an autodidact.
/rolleyes
I understand your point, and it's fair to say this is not an attack on intellectual property in the same way that most civil societies don't absolutely forbid certain speech.
However, by an academic institution claiming ownership on an associate's speech, I would argue that a chilling effect is in play. Financial disincentive is a dangerous tool in the toolbox of the supressors of speech. Even if the intent in this case isn't explicitly censorship.
What's the difference between "you can't speak" and "you can speak, but you won't get your legal ownership of your speech"? Potentially, pretty slim.
Because it's a question... and this is "Ask Slashdot".
Think about it. If I had to ask any community for advice on slacking, Slashdot has got to be the absolute optimum target.
Just be grateful this particular "Ask Slashdot" isn't asking us to engineer his sound system or solve his failing interpersonal relations at work.
Yeah.
As the data volume increases, as the processing power sifting the data also increases, as the connection patterns grow... the temptation will be to treat all the perceived signficance of those connections as precognition. We love to forecast, and modern forecasting is based on detailed analysis of huge amounts of data (the "business case" behind data mining).
So, how long before we get "preventative detention" for "probable future (terrorists|traitors|child molesters)"?
Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.
"And that's a small price to pay, as long as it it's them, not me. And it'll never be me. I'm a good American."
It's never "me" until suddenly it is.
The sad lesson of the past: the sad lessons of the past apply to everyone, but no one will believe it applies to them until reality proves it to them. People (rightly) complain about American exceptionalism, but exceptionalism applies to individuals and small self-identifying groups (e.g., "right-thinking patriots") as well.
No, that's the Spanish Inquisition.
It's reasonable that you didn't think of them. No one ever expects them.
-- William Gibson, "Burning Chrome"
Unless the character is backed up against an obstacle. In which case the camera will be placed between the obstacle and the back of the actor's head. And all you'll see is head. Nothing but the back of the head. In IMAX 3D!