Video games have good side effect? Fine, it's better than dying of cholera and being buried beside the trail, but it's not like we're going to start encouraging children to play more video games.
Let kids play some games, it's not the end of the world. Then send them outside to interact with real people.
I don't know why people can't grasp this simple concept. Life is never without risks. you cannot have a free society without the possibility for crime. You just can't. A balance has to be found.
Roads in particular will never be totally safe. Many traffic laws in the U.S. don't do any good. Many accidents happen when everyone is obeying the law, and breaking the law hardly guarantees an accident. Many roads have speed limits significantly below their real 'safe' speed and everyone knows it; that's why you see so many people speeding.
The problem is not how fast you drive, or rolling through stop signs. If you're at a red light on an abandoned road with no other cars for miles, why shouldn't you be able to drive though it?
The real problem is poor judgement, accentuated by the attitude (at least in the US) that everyone has a 'right' to drive.
The real solution, which would save numerous lives, and greatly improve traffic as well, is taking idiots off the roads. If you've been at fault for several major accidents; that's it: no more driving. If you're too old and frail to walk unassisted, what makes us think you can stomp the brake down before you hit that farmer's market up ahead? If you repeatedly drink and drive, what right do you have to be on the road?
Unfortunately, politicians don't have the guts to implement this.
P.S.: Learn to merge!
Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They'd need some big balls to associate their company name with a virus. Once the identity of the people unleashing viruses AND sending tons of spam in known, they won't exist for long. For that reason alone I'd say it's much more likely they'd be setting up a distributed spamming network.
I almost forgot... since UMM is west of the Mississippi, that makes our radio station KUMM. No, I'm not even kidding. Their shirts even have little sperm on the sleeve.
Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses? After all, if they didn't miss these bugs, the viruses wouldn't have a mechanism to run on. But should we blame the guys producing Apache when a flaw is found in that? Personally, I think its unfair to blame MS for all of this.
Whether it's fair to blame them depends on how hard they tried to find and fix the holes. If someone could show that microsoft made only a token effort, they'd probably have grounds to sue for damages.
(IANALBIPOOSD)
Screw patches. In a nuclear power plant, you simply do not connect a computer to an outside network even indirectly. Its ridiculous to even consider it an option. Then, if the computer's not broken, you don't fix it. CDR's are cheap; chernobyls are not.
All in all, I'd say RMS was at his insideous best when he crafted the GPL - delcare the GPL invalid, and all other IP licenses are fair game too.
If the GPL went down and took all other IP protections with it, it might not be such a bad thing. We'd be rid of indefinite copyright and ridiculous patents. go SCO!
It really would be sad if having someone to blame was more important than having good software. Besides, if Microsoft was really accountable, some of this shit would have been *fixed* by now.
if i did "stumble across" unauthorized linux desktops, they'd be formatted with extreme prejudice. they almost certainly would have no antivirus software, no agents for our desktop license management, and almost certainly wouldn't be keeping up with security updates.
I'm aware of the difficulties of supporting different systems, but I'm inclined to say 'quit your damn whining'. If you're not able to support the boxes, get someone who is. Employees should use whatever OS and programs they can be most productive with, not something dictated by higher-ups. This is especially true when their choice is in most ways better and always cheaper.
Further, linux viruses are extremely rare, license management virtually irrelevant, and if they can install linux on their own, they can probably handle doing an apt-get dist-upgrade occasionally.
the users don't own their machines - the company does. if they want to piss around with _any_ os, let them do it on their own time, on their own network, and on their own equipment.
I doubt many people who install linux at work are 'pissing around'. Most of them are trying to do more work in less time, or just trying to be able to do their job in the first place, which makes it hard to justify companies fighting them on this.
You would think that voting machines you would want simple and private code with high encription.
A single company with the power to determine the outcome of the election if they choose? That's a little too much power for my tastes. It needs to be open so that people can see it is free of bugs, vulnerabilities, and conspiracies. It is then the companies job to fix all the problems found. Certainly many programmers would want to review this to protect everyone's rights. A hacker might be able to exploit a few voting machines, but a bug or a conspiracy would affect all of them
"There are several responses that almost everyone gives; mentioning these shows the psychologist you're a regular guy." So, I'm afraid that these inkblot tests won't be any better than pet names and the other common things in people's heads.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a total psycho
I think the anti-robot attitude is focused on robots that run off on their own, and aren't named Mr. Roboto.
As soon as one robot can build another (including gathering the necessary resources & power), we're all potentially screwed. If one robot can build a better robot, we're really screwed.
4 years of German, and I still had to see the headline five times before I realized it was Linux *Day*
Re:Keep your original goals and objectives in mind
on
Funding Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
I have a slight issue with funding Open Source because it's kind of like Why don't I just buy a license instead? How is donating any different?
It's quite a bit different. You never *have* to donate. If you choose to, you can do so after using the software for years, so you know how valuable the software is to you, and can take that into account when donating. You can also donate as little as you want. On well known projects, even a $1 donation by each user could fund several full time developers. You (or more likely a company) might choose to sponsor a specific feature, as has happened with MySQL.
As mentioned in previous posts, you can't write a driver without hardware, and some of that hardware is expensive.
As a poor college student, I can't say I've donated money to projects, but I have donated time. In a perfect world I'd be able to donate to projects that I find really useful. Perhaps I'll go send my $1 now.
Slashdot Mirror
Let kids play some games, it's not the end of the world. Then send them outside to interact with real people.
Roads in particular will never be totally safe. Many traffic laws in the U.S. don't do any good. Many accidents happen when everyone is obeying the law, and breaking the law hardly guarantees an accident. Many roads have speed limits significantly below their real 'safe' speed and everyone knows it; that's why you see so many people speeding.
The problem is not how fast you drive, or rolling through stop signs. If you're at a red light on an abandoned road with no other cars for miles, why shouldn't you be able to drive though it?
The real problem is poor judgement, accentuated by the attitude (at least in the US) that everyone has a 'right' to drive.
The real solution, which would save numerous lives, and greatly improve traffic as well, is taking idiots off the roads. If you've been at fault for several major accidents; that's it: no more driving. If you're too old and frail to walk unassisted, what makes us think you can stomp the brake down before you hit that farmer's market up ahead? If you repeatedly drink and drive, what right do you have to be on the road?
Unfortunately, politicians don't have the guts to implement this.
P.S.: Learn to merge!
They'd need some big balls to associate their company name with a virus. Once the identity of the people unleashing viruses AND sending tons of spam in known, they won't exist for long. For that reason alone I'd say it's much more likely they'd be setting up a distributed spamming network.
I almost forgot... since UMM is west of the Mississippi, that makes our radio station KUMM. No, I'm not even kidding. Their shirts even have little sperm on the sleeve.
UMM, I don't know, what?
Ultimately, could Microsoft be blamed for these viruses? After all, if they didn't miss these bugs, the viruses wouldn't have a mechanism to run on. But should we blame the guys producing Apache when a flaw is found in that? Personally, I think its unfair to blame MS for all of this. Whether it's fair to blame them depends on how hard they tried to find and fix the holes. If someone could show that microsoft made only a token effort, they'd probably have grounds to sue for damages. (IANALBIPOOSD)
The best public liberal arts college is a military institute?!?
Screw patches. In a nuclear power plant, you simply do not connect a computer to an outside network even indirectly. Its ridiculous to even consider it an option. Then, if the computer's not broken, you don't fix it. CDR's are cheap; chernobyls are not.
dselect is a layer of debian package management. those of us with an instinct for self-preservation use apt-get
Thanks for the image of the insatiable penguin -- Tux the lusty IP pirate -- hysterical
If the GPL went down and took all other IP protections with it, it might not be such a bad thing. We'd be rid of indefinite copyright and ridiculous patents. go SCO!
It really would be sad if having someone to blame was more important than having good software. Besides, if Microsoft was really accountable, some of this shit would have been *fixed* by now.
and now we know where Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf got off too
I'm aware of the difficulties of supporting different systems, but I'm inclined to say 'quit your damn whining'. If you're not able to support the boxes, get someone who is. Employees should use whatever OS and programs they can be most productive with, not something dictated by higher-ups. This is especially true when their choice is in most ways better and always cheaper.
Further, linux viruses are extremely rare, license management virtually irrelevant, and if they can install linux on their own, they can probably handle doing an apt-get dist-upgrade occasionally.
the users don't own their machines - the company does. if they want to piss around with _any_ os, let them do it on their own time, on their own network, and on their own equipment.
I doubt many people who install linux at work are 'pissing around'. Most of them are trying to do more work in less time, or just trying to be able to do their job in the first place, which makes it hard to justify companies fighting them on this.
When they start requiring parachutes in skyscapers, you'll know the terrorists have won.
A single company with the power to determine the outcome of the election if they choose? That's a little too much power for my tastes. It needs to be open so that people can see it is free of bugs, vulnerabilities, and conspiracies. It is then the companies job to fix all the problems found. Certainly many programmers would want to review this to protect everyone's rights. A hacker might be able to exploit a few voting machines, but a bug or a conspiracy would affect all of them
Shut up you fool! Do you WANT them to find out?
SCO should not affect linux at all. You seem to have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the masses.
it makes me sad sometimes...
Unless, of course, you happen to be a total psycho
Go nuts, call it LinuxWoch. Then I'll know what's going on, instead of picturing a bunch of penguins chasing each other around the playground.
As soon as one robot can build another (including gathering the necessary resources & power), we're all potentially screwed. If one robot can build a better robot, we're really screwed.
is that at that speed, you might have downloaded everything on the internet already
4 years of German, and I still had to see the headline five times before I realized it was Linux *Day*
It's quite a bit different. You never *have* to donate. If you choose to, you can do so after using the software for years, so you know how valuable the software is to you, and can take that into account when donating. You can also donate as little as you want. On well known projects, even a $1 donation by each user could fund several full time developers. You (or more likely a company) might choose to sponsor a specific feature, as has happened with MySQL.
As mentioned in previous posts, you can't write a driver without hardware, and some of that hardware is expensive.
As a poor college student, I can't say I've donated money to projects, but I have donated time. In a perfect world I'd be able to donate to projects that I find really useful. Perhaps I'll go send my $1 now.