No matter where you live, it helps if (a) the recipient of your shotgun blast is on your property when shot, and (b) the shot is to the front of said recipient (and not in his back as he tries to flee), thus bolstering a claim of self-defense.
So, order the jackass to turn around before you shoot him. Then drag his bloody carcass back onto your lawn.
Q: Can I call 911?
A: Yes, absolutely. Safety is important, and enhanced 911 service is provided. Note that Digital Phone does not include back-up power and in the event of a power outage, the ability to call 911 will not be available until the power is restored.
Re:Thomas Jefferson's opinion
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Dude, if you're going to quote Thomas Jefferson, use the whole quote. Here's the next paragraph:
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Does that make sense to you too?
Lemley's Retarded Reasoning
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Lemley makes the grand mistake (made so often by people arguing for an "IP-free state") of making this statement:
In a market econonomy, we care only that producers make enough return to cover their costs, including a reasonable profit . . . . so long as the price stays above marginal cost producers will still make the good."
This is true for a mature product. But we're talking about invention, which implies innovation, which implies risk.
Lemley uses the example of a copy of "Hamlet". If the actual production cost of the book is $5.00, how much should a producer be allowed to make? What is a fair profit? 20%?
Now, say that the product isn't a book. Let's say it's a pill for cancer patients. The pill costs $0.30 to produce (that is the "marginal cost"). Still think 20% is okay?
Lemley would ignore the fact that this company spent billions of dollars on the research that led to the cure, in addition to billions of dolloars on ongoing research that never leads to a cure. How do they afford this? They have shareholders who are willing to take a risk: let's spend billions of dollars, and maybe we can get a return on our investment. Lemley says that "rent ['unfair' profit] seeking behavior" is "socially wasteful." Nothing could be further from the truth. Rent-seeking behaviour is the essence of entrepreneurship, and it is the very behavior we should encourage.
The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward that is required to make entrepreneurs take that risk. Any academic who uses the rhetoric of "covering costs, plus a fair profit" should be summarily ignored. Entrepreneurs do not take giant risks and invest in the creation of world-changing technology for "a fair profit."
The stuff you create, whether physical or intellectual, should be yours, and you should be able to do what you want with it, at least for some period of time. If it is in your interest to release your property under the GPL (as it most certainly is for some companies and their software assets), you should be able to do it. If you want to be the Grinch and stuff it under your mattress, you should be able to do that, too. For the good of the world and everyone in it, entrepreneurs should be allowed and encouraged to seek profit. And "zero-sum", "profit is wasteful", "you-should-only-have-'fair'-profit" academics like Lemley should be dismissed.
(And now, someone will inevitably point out a grammar or spelling error in this post. Go ahead.)
Okay.
You should be able to follow the common part followed by any single element.
The "followed by" adjective phrase is redundant and, when used in place of a proper adverb phrase with the "to follow" infinitive, destroys the meaning of your sentence. Your sentence states that the reader himself (not the "single element") should be able to follow the "common part." To fix the sentence, you can remove the redundant adjective phrase and replace it with a proper adverb phrase: "You should be able to follow the common part with any single element." Or, you can replace the verb so that the original adjective phrase makes sense: "You should be able to state the common part, followed by any single element."
The thing is, the people who are poor spellers, have poor grammar and who [sic] use poor organizational skills don't matter so much on the internet.
Visit your homepage preferences and select Politics to avoid seeing these stories on your main page.
THANK YOU Slashdot for doing this. If there is one place that I DO NOT want political opinion (except if it SPECIFICALLY relates to technology), it is/. I am changing my homepage preferences now.
"why are my school tuition fees being spent on frivilous sundries benefiting 3rd party companies instead of improving my schools educational resources"
Take a look at the stuff on this list (e.g. Computer/Student Ratio, Handheld Computing, Digital Streaming), and you'll see all of the various technology bandwagons that are attracting the lemmings of academia.
This is why Dell and the gang are having a ball dumping computers onto the education market. This is why Duke will buy ipods. Nobody asks, "How will this technology actually be used to create a better learning environment?" All you have to do to move up in the rankings is buy, buy, buy!
You should teach them that the way to learn about stuff you see on/. is probably not to just load it into the command line and see what happens. Do a bit of research first and learn what will happen. Unless you're like me, with a chronic case of "need to learn things the hard way" and don't mind having to pull the damn plug on the machine.
You should also teach them that they shouldn't believe everything they read on/.
The safe way to see this fork bomb in action is to type it into a Cygwin shell on a Windows box. Try it.
One thing about Synergy: it is a KM (Keyboard and Mouse only), not KVM (ie, no video -- you can use one mouse and keyboard, but you still have to have two monitors). The original question said that there are two monitors there already, so Synergy would work for him, but it is not a solution for multiple computers (unless your desk looks like Tank's).
The Synergy FAQ said that KVM functionality may be added in the future.
Not only is it legal -- it is standard. An attorney will ask for everything he or she can think of that might be remotely relevant to the case. This puts the burden on the disclosing party to either (a) produce the information, (b) claim that the information does not exist, or (c) say why it doesn't need to supply the information (e.g. it is privileged).
One reason that the disclosing party may give for refusing to answer is, "It is completely irrelevant to this case." SCO could then ask the judge for a hearing if they disagree, where the judge would examine the documents in question and decide whether to compel production.
Lawyers can, and do, get slapped (with contempt of court, fines, disbarred...) for abuse of the discovery process, but it's got to be pretty bad.
Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch.
The developers of CUPS have scratched their itch. I personally have no desire to scratch Aunt Tillie's itch. She isn't paying me. Neither is Raymond.
My printer works. If Aunt Tillie wants hers to work, she can pay me to set it up for her, or she can pay me to write software that makes it easier.
Why the hell is it CUPS's (or anyone else's) responsiblity to do this? If IBM and Red Hat are going to profit from easy printer sharing, let them write good config utilities. The CUPS team got the reward they were after. Their printers work.
When someone gives you a gift, try not to kick them in the nuts and ask for more. They have every right to stop giving.
Say I'm using some GPL project X. Then, I sue company C for patent infringement for some code that they published under Apache and which then found its way into X. So, I've lost the patent rights to C's code in X that I'm suing over.
But I claim that I own the patent rights already. Either I'm right (and the Apache provision doesn't matter, since losing C's patent license is meaningless because I own the rights myself), or I'm wrong, and this sentence of the GPL is dead-on:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
There are only 26 letters in the alphabet. Some platforms (like old Mac OS) have a file length limit (31 characters, for example). Since Java stores class files in a file by the same name, this means that class names can only be 26 characters long (minus the ".java")
So, for a programmer like me, I must have case sensitivity. Otherwise I am limited to somewhat more (because of use of non-alphabetic characters) than 6.156119580207158e+36 class names. Clearly inadequate.
There's an ancient how-to floating around about how you can switch to Debian from Red Hat without a complete re-install. It seems like there are a lot of us who will be doing this soon -- having another Linux-install-weekend is not my idea of a good time. Any help?
I got the (HTML) email below today. The misspell of the word "response" tipped me off that something was awry. Sure enough, it is one of these phantom redirects.
In the case of spams, cutting and pasting the link from the text of the email (instead of just clicking) takes care of the problem -- you can't fake the address that way.
____________________
Dear eBay User,
During our regular udpate and verification of the accounts, we couldn't verify your current information. Either your information has changed or it is incomplete.
As a result, your access to bid or buy on Ebay has been restricted. To start using your eBay account fully, please update and verify your information by clicking below:
https://scgi.ebay.com/saw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?Verify Information
Regards,
eBay
**Please Do Not Reply To This E-Mail As You Will Not Receive A Responce**
Ummm, yeah. That's my point. nvu is taking the Composer project, improving it and adding new functionality, and releasing it as nvu. So, we'll have two software development processes going at the same time: Composer and nvu.
As with any open source codebase "branch", developers have to choose which branch they're going to support. Looks like nvu is serious about becoming a Dreamweaver replacement. Is Composer?
Mozilla Composer is no match for Dreamweaver right now for WYSIWYG web page dev. As an open source developer who desparately wants this project, should I work on Mozilla or this new thing? I can't find anything on the Mozilla roadmap that says they're moving in this direction. Anybody know something I don't?
Started out with a Vic-20. It sucked because it had a huge font. The letters looked stupid. I actually bought a cartridge that made the letters look like C64 letters.
Then, I got the big daddy. With a cassette tape drive.
Also fun was going to the mall, typing
10 print "F*** YOU"; 20 goto 10 run
and watching the idiot at the store try to figure out how to stop it.
True C64ers know what the ";" did at the end of line 10.
>>If at least./ authors could turn on their brain before writing an article. Linux is not Unix-based. That's what SCO is trying to tell people. It is a Unix-like system. Stop spreading SCO's FUD, please!
>I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but Linux is indeed UNIX-based.
Good troll, first post. You got one, and they modded him up to +4.
Dude, get a pelican waterproof case and carve out a place in the foam insert for all of your goodies. Electronic crap looks like james bond shit when it's in one of these. Plus, room for all docking stations, cradles and power supplies and a laptop and dossiers for your targets:)
>You could write the same report about OpenBSD Linux Solaris or OS/X if you wanted to.
Well, no. The point of the paper was that the lack of OS diversity is the fundamental problem. If the article had been "MS is insecure," then yes, you could write it about any OS. But that's not what the paper said.
Regardless of whether you agree with the paper, and regardless of whether you think Geer was a fool for writing the article, and regardless of whether he got what he deserved, etc., my question is this:
Is there any way that a security consulting firm can fire an employee for co-authoring a paper with other industry-leading thinkers simply because the article criticizes a customer, and that firm still retain any kind of authority? Isn't @stake doomed? Isn't this the worst way they could have handled the situation?
I read the report, and it didn't sound like a "MS is teh ghey" rant to me.
It sounded more like a new argument against OS monopoly, and one that made sense: it doesn't matter who has the monopoly -- just the mere fact that there is no OS diversity in itself presents a security risk. Whether or not you believe it, it is at least plausible, and a point of view that needed to be heard. Schneier put his name on it, and in my book, even if it's wrong, that at least means you should pay attention.
How can @stake fire a guy for writing that? I agree, @stake doesn't owe him employment. But how can a company that calls itself a "security consulting company" fire an employee for helping to write a paper suggesting that OS monopoly is bad for security?
Would you seriously hire @stake now? If your security consultants will be fired if they criticize microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
No matter where you live, it helps if (a) the recipient of your shotgun blast is on your property when shot, and (b) the shot is to the front of said recipient (and not in his back as he tries to flee), thus bolstering a claim of self-defense.
So, order the jackass to turn around before you shoot him. Then drag his bloody carcass back onto your lawn.
IANYL (I Am Not Your Lawyer)
http://www.twcdigitalphone.com/austin/faq_special
Does that make sense to you too?
Lemley makes the grand mistake (made so often by people arguing for an "IP-free state") of making this statement:
In a market econonomy, we care only that producers make enough return to cover their costs, including a reasonable profit . . . . so long as the price stays above marginal cost producers will still make the good."
This is true for a mature product. But we're talking about invention, which implies innovation, which implies risk.
Lemley uses the example of a copy of "Hamlet". If the actual production cost of the book is $5.00, how much should a producer be allowed to make? What is a fair profit? 20%?
Now, say that the product isn't a book. Let's say it's a pill for cancer patients. The pill costs $0.30 to produce (that is the "marginal cost"). Still think 20% is okay?
Lemley would ignore the fact that this company spent billions of dollars on the research that led to the cure, in addition to billions of dolloars on ongoing research that never leads to a cure. How do they afford this? They have shareholders who are willing to take a risk: let's spend billions of dollars, and maybe we can get a return on our investment. Lemley says that "rent ['unfair' profit] seeking behavior" is "socially wasteful." Nothing could be further from the truth. Rent-seeking behaviour is the essence of entrepreneurship, and it is the very behavior we should encourage.
The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward that is required to make entrepreneurs take that risk. Any academic who uses the rhetoric of "covering costs, plus a fair profit" should be summarily ignored. Entrepreneurs do not take giant risks and invest in the creation of world-changing technology for "a fair profit."
The stuff you create, whether physical or intellectual, should be yours, and you should be able to do what you want with it, at least for some period of time. If it is in your interest to release your property under the GPL (as it most certainly is for some companies and their software assets), you should be able to do it. If you want to be the Grinch and stuff it under your mattress, you should be able to do that, too. For the good of the world and everyone in it, entrepreneurs should be allowed and encouraged to seek profit. And "zero-sum", "profit is wasteful", "you-should-only-have-'fair'-profit" academics like Lemley should be dismissed.
(And now, someone will inevitably point out a grammar or spelling error in this post. Go ahead.)
Okay.
You should be able to follow the common part followed by any single element.
The "followed by" adjective phrase is redundant and, when used in place of a proper adverb phrase with the "to follow" infinitive, destroys the meaning of your sentence. Your sentence states that the reader himself (not the "single element") should be able to follow the "common part." To fix the sentence, you can remove the redundant adjective phrase and replace it with a proper adverb phrase: "You should be able to follow the common part with any single element." Or, you can replace the verb so that the original adjective phrase makes sense: "You should be able to state the common part, followed by any single element."
The thing is, the people who are poor spellers, have poor grammar and who [sic] use poor organizational skills don't matter so much on the internet.
agreed.
Visit your homepage preferences and select Politics to avoid seeing these stories on your main page.
/. I am changing my homepage preferences now.
THANK YOU Slashdot for doing this. If there is one place that I DO NOT want political opinion (except if it SPECIFICALLY relates to technology), it is
"why are my school tuition fees being spent on frivilous sundries benefiting 3rd party companies instead of improving my schools educational resources"
Here's why: Princeton Review's "America's Most Connected Campuses" methodology
Take a look at the stuff on this list (e.g. Computer/Student Ratio, Handheld Computing, Digital Streaming), and you'll see all of the various technology bandwagons that are attracting the lemmings of academia.
This is why Dell and the gang are having a ball dumping computers onto the education market. This is why Duke will buy ipods. Nobody asks, "How will this technology actually be used to create a better learning environment?" All you have to do to move up in the rankings is buy, buy, buy!
You should teach them that the way to learn about stuff you see on /. is probably not to just load it into the command line and see what happens. Do a bit of research first and learn what will happen. Unless you're like me, with a chronic case of "need to learn things the hard way" and don't mind having to pull the damn plug on the machine.
/.
You should also teach them that they shouldn't believe everything they read on
The safe way to see this fork bomb in action is to type it into a Cygwin shell on a Windows box. Try it.
One thing about Synergy: it is a KM (Keyboard and Mouse only), not KVM (ie, no video -- you can use one mouse and keyboard, but you still have to have two monitors). The original question said that there are two monitors there already, so Synergy would work for him, but it is not a solution for multiple computers (unless your desk looks like Tank's).
The Synergy FAQ said that KVM functionality may be added in the future.
Not only is it legal -- it is standard. An attorney will ask for everything he or she can think of that might be remotely relevant to the case. This puts the burden on the disclosing party to either (a) produce the information, (b) claim that the information does not exist, or (c) say why it doesn't need to supply the information (e.g. it is privileged).
One reason that the disclosing party may give for refusing to answer is, "It is completely irrelevant to this case." SCO could then ask the judge for a hearing if they disagree, where the judge would examine the documents in question and decide whether to compel production.
Lawyers can, and do, get slapped (with contempt of court, fines, disbarred...) for abuse of the discovery process, but it's got to be pretty bad.
IANYL (I Am Not YOUR Lawyer)
Shoes don't fall apart in one day, you know.
Unless, of course, you blow out a flip-flop by stepping on a pop-top.
The developers of CUPS have scratched their itch. I personally have no desire to scratch Aunt Tillie's itch. She isn't paying me. Neither is Raymond.
My printer works. If Aunt Tillie wants hers to work, she can pay me to set it up for her, or she can pay me to write software that makes it easier.
Why the hell is it CUPS's (or anyone else's) responsiblity to do this? If IBM and Red Hat are going to profit from easy printer sharing, let them write good config utilities. The CUPS team got the reward they were after. Their printers work.
When someone gives you a gift, try not to kick them in the nuts and ask for more. They have every right to stop giving.
But I claim that I own the patent rights already. Either I'm right (and the Apache provision doesn't matter, since losing C's patent license is meaningless because I own the rights myself), or I'm wrong, and this sentence of the GPL is dead-on:
Why incompatible?
Self-Reflection is clumsy and verbose. And your performance suffers.
Item 35: Prefer Interfaces to Reflection.
There are only 26 letters in the alphabet. Some platforms (like old Mac OS) have a file length limit (31 characters, for example). Since Java stores class files in a file by the same name, this means that class names can only be 26 characters long (minus the ".java")
So, for a programmer like me, I must have case sensitivity. Otherwise I am limited to somewhat more (because of use of non-alphabetic characters) than 6.156119580207158e+36 class names. Clearly inadequate.
There's an ancient how-to floating around about how you can switch to Debian from Red Hat without a complete re-install. It seems like there are a lot of us who will be doing this soon -- having another Linux-install-weekend is not my idea of a good time. Any help?
https://scgi.ebay.com/saw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?Verify Information
I got the (HTML) email below today. The misspell of the word "response" tipped me off that something was awry. Sure enough, it is one of these phantom redirects.
:
y Information
In the case of spams, cutting and pasting the link from the text of the email (instead of just clicking) takes care of the problem -- you can't fake the address that way.
____________________
Dear eBay User,
During our regular udpate and verification of the accounts, we couldn't verify your current information. Either your information has changed or it is incomplete.
As a result, your access to bid or buy on Ebay has been restricted. To start using your eBay account fully, please update and verify your information by clicking below
https://scgi.ebay.com/saw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?Verif
Regards,
eBay
**Please Do Not Reply To This E-Mail As You Will Not Receive A Responce**
Ummm, yeah. That's my point. nvu is taking the Composer project, improving it and adding new functionality, and releasing it as nvu. So, we'll have two software development processes going at the same time: Composer and nvu.
As with any open source codebase "branch", developers have to choose which branch they're going to support. Looks like nvu is serious about becoming a Dreamweaver replacement. Is Composer?
Mozilla Composer is no match for Dreamweaver right now for WYSIWYG web page dev. As an open source developer who desparately wants this project, should I work on Mozilla or this new thing? I can't find anything on the Mozilla roadmap that says they're moving in this direction. Anybody know something I don't?
Started out with a Vic-20. It sucked because it had a huge font. The letters looked stupid. I actually bought a cartridge that made the letters look like C64 letters.
Then, I got the big daddy. With a cassette tape drive.
Also fun was going to the mall, typing
10 print "F*** YOU";
20 goto 10
run
and watching the idiot at the store try to figure out how to stop it.
True C64ers know what the ";" did at the end of line 10.
>>If at least ./ authors could turn on their brain before writing an article. Linux is not Unix-based. That's what SCO is trying to tell people. It is a Unix-like system. Stop spreading SCO's FUD, please!
>I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but Linux is indeed UNIX-based.
Good troll, first post. You got one, and they modded him up to +4.
Dude, get a pelican waterproof case and carve out a place in the foam insert for all of your goodies. Electronic crap looks like james bond shit when it's in one of these. Plus, room for all docking stations, cradles and power supplies and a laptop and dossiers for your targets :)
>You could write the same report about OpenBSD Linux Solaris or OS/X if you wanted to.
Well, no. The point of the paper was that the lack of OS diversity is the fundamental problem. If the article had been "MS is insecure," then yes, you could write it about any OS. But that's not what the paper said.
Regardless of whether you agree with the paper, and regardless of whether you think Geer was a fool for writing the article, and regardless of whether he got what he deserved, etc., my question is this:
Is there any way that a security consulting firm can fire an employee for co-authoring a paper with other industry-leading thinkers simply because the article criticizes a customer, and that firm still retain any kind of authority? Isn't @stake doomed? Isn't this the worst way they could have handled the situation?
I read the report, and it didn't sound like a "MS is teh ghey" rant to me.
It sounded more like a new argument against OS monopoly, and one that made sense: it doesn't matter who has the monopoly -- just the mere fact that there is no OS diversity in itself presents a security risk. Whether or not you believe it, it is at least plausible, and a point of view that needed to be heard. Schneier put his name on it, and in my book, even if it's wrong, that at least means you should pay attention.
How can @stake fire a guy for writing that? I agree, @stake doesn't owe him employment. But how can a company that calls itself a "security consulting company" fire an employee for helping to write a paper suggesting that OS monopoly is bad for security?
Would you seriously hire @stake now? If your security consultants will be fired if they criticize microsoft?