"...blaw, blaw, blaw... Gas tanks can't blow up... blaw, blaw, blaw... gas has to first leak all over the place to create sufficient surface area for it to evaporate quickly, and then it has to be ignited... blaw, blaw, blaw..."
You mean to tell me there is no gas vapor inside a gas tank? It has to leak all over the place first to expload? Hmmmmm.....
The passengers of Flight 800 beg to differ on your theory. I'm sure if I Googled, I could find much, much more.
I keep reading "anti-trust" this and that here, and of course it's all true. But I think it's very clear from the US Government's actions (lack thereof), that they have NO INTEREST is pursuing Microsoft in any way, shape, or form. The EU might have a chance, but then Microsoft can roll them up in a huge ball of procedural delay until it's simply a moot point. I think the only choice left is to simply ignore what Microsoft is doing (assume it's doing bad things) and concentrate on building a Linux platform (yes, an idiot proof application install standard, do something about dependency hell, and of course the "desktop") that corporate buyers actually want to deploy.
Well, neither you nor I may have use for them, but when I worked for Internet Entertainment Group, we had 2 (yes two) OC-3 lines and 6 T-1s RUNNING INTO OUR SERVER ROOM, all ours. Porn, people. Seth would have bought them without even a second thought.
My point is, Seth was not special, there are many many places to off high end network gear.
Message from kmitnick@localhost on pts/1 at 13:31...
Um... dude... you picked the wrong freaking box to hack into today...
Besides the fact that Mr. Mitnick is still on the Federally mandated no-Internet plan, I question if some "dude" is going to be able to hack his "freaking box".
The point is, that in exchange for providing you with WiFi for FREE AS IN BEER, you have to put up with the ads. There is no law that says they have to provide you with WiFi for FREE AS IN BEER, just as to keep Slashdot going there are ads here too.
Interesting to note that commercial-free TV (PBS..), is not really. Those messages between NOVA and Antiques Roadshow from Pfizer and IBM telling us how Earth-friendly they are? Those are called ads. They help pay for Public TV... Many worthwhile things are paid for with ads (Slashdot may fall into this category, only YOU can say...)
Honestly, Richard Stallman is the worst thing that could happen to Open Source and the idea that Java should be Open Source. He has only one mind, which is socialist, and it does not work well with the reality that the world is basically NOT socialist. More power to Richard Stallman, although, if you THINK about it, he really has not done that much at all for Open Source except to piss a lot of people off. In truth, the only thing Richard Stallman has done is increasing his chance of getting laid.
The TRUE powers and movers and important people in Open Source are those that embrace the idea that there is a relationship between commercial development and OS. Richard Stallman will retire from MIT with a fat check that allows him to live comfortably for the rest of his life without working like you and I have to do. So, when he sits in his hot tub, he can spout out platitudes.
The rest of us have to work for a living.
Replace every time they mention guns and replace it with speech.
But it's not the same thing. The Constitution says specific things about both, and they are not the same things. The ACLU maintains (and has a very good argument about it, if you care to go and read their site) that the Constitution does not guarantee individual rights to bare arms. Gun nuts will try and bend, twist, convolute, and misinterpret what the Constitution says, but that does not change what it says. The ACLU maintains that individual gun rights are a matter for congress to decide since the Constitution is clear that only states have a constitutional right to bare arms.
They don't defend the rights of gun owners for one... This means they are really no different than anyone else.
Not so at all.
From the ACLU web site:
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
Yep, however much it was interesting to start with - endless stories about [iTunes / RAII / Video Games / Video Cards / Diebold / And on and on and on...] etc are just tedious......
Funny, I can do without most of the stuff here at Slashdot, yet the SCO thing interests me.
Read my post: Bands (MOST bands) and their management ARE NOT going to allow this. USE YOUR HEAD.
Also, a lot of bands are prefectly fine with recording bootlegs and sharing them all over the place."A lot" and in a lot of alturnative-non-commercial-still-puttin'-out-vinyl bands. Tha's fine. But any band you plunk down $35+ to see, ain't going to happen.
And this is cool even though it will without question involve DRM, but of course RAII is *bad* for using DRM... And anyway, come on people, do you really think that bands and their promoters / managers / shills are going to facilitate the distro of live bootlegs out into cyberspace? Not going to happen.
Second point: I just dont see anything new about recording a bootleg off the board, and selling it. Happens every day and has for YEARS.
The aging hippy boys at Mythbusters (Discovery Channel) did some experiment involving running through rain. They film out of San Francisco, so of course they had to suit up in skin tight black latex. One of the hosts is a typical out of shape geek, but the other guy is pretty (I'm so pretty, oh so pretty...) buff , so the contrast was interesting. You also could refer back to that guy who built the Tron suit. That may be what you are visualizing...
For document storage, I convert each character into an octal number, than arrange grains of sand into little piles on my basement floor. It works fine; I have no idea why anyone needs anything else.
The network admin at one of my former jobs was a Nun with a ruler (Sisters of Providence Medical Center). The tightest network operation I've ever seen.
Without commenting on the whole political subject of the RAII and it's tactics... Your argument is pretty thin. I mean, you or your housemates or your juvenile children or other dependents. In the end, if it's your internet conx, you're responsible.
This is my point: There is no harm in watching it on a Linux box. The RAII has no issues with you watching it on a Linux box. Connecting this issue to Linux politics is a red haring because the issue is not Linux, it's the DRM on the DVD (or other media). Even if Linux DVD players where a dime a dozen, and all popular DVD titles came in formats playable on these Linux DVD players, the issue would still be here. Why? It has nothing to do with your OS, and everything to do with how most people here interpret what is "fair use". Personally, I have no problem paying for the right to view a DVD or listen to a CD. But I don't toot that horn here anymore...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean to tell me there is no gas vapor inside a gas tank? It has to leak all over the place first to expload? Hmmmmm.....
The passengers of Flight 800 beg to differ on your theory. I'm sure if I Googled, I could find much, much more.
I did 911 from 1985 to 1990. Sometimes to get the information, I'd have to SCREAM "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO ME!" from hysterical people.
I keep reading "anti-trust" this and that here, and of course it's all true. But I think it's very clear from the US Government's actions (lack thereof), that they have NO INTEREST is pursuing Microsoft in any way, shape, or form. The EU might have a chance, but then Microsoft can roll them up in a huge ball of procedural delay until it's simply a moot point. I think the only choice left is to simply ignore what Microsoft is doing (assume it's doing bad things) and concentrate on building a Linux platform (yes, an idiot proof application install standard, do something about dependency hell, and of course the "desktop") that corporate buyers actually want to deploy.
Yes, but do you run a porn site? Our conx might be small for Whatever-Multi_Corp, but for PORN it's a lot. Get over yourself.
My point is, Seth was not special, there are many many places to off high end network gear.
Um... dude... you picked the wrong freaking box to hack into today...
Besides the fact that Mr. Mitnick is still on the Federally mandated no-Internet plan, I question if some "dude" is going to be able to hack his "freaking box".
The point is, that in exchange for providing you with WiFi for FREE AS IN BEER, you have to put up with the ads. There is no law that says they have to provide you with WiFi for FREE AS IN BEER, just as to keep Slashdot going there are ads here too.
Interesting to note that commercial-free TV (PBS..), is not really. Those messages between NOVA and Antiques Roadshow from Pfizer and IBM telling us how Earth-friendly they are? Those are called ads. They help pay for Public TV... Many worthwhile things are paid for with ads (Slashdot may fall into this category, only YOU can say...)
The biggest thing he didn't like was that it produces CRAPPY shapes lines and fonts. It is not a professional tool. Yet.
It has more to do with, er, who you "know", if ya catch my drift in the "biblical" direction....
Honestly, Richard Stallman is the worst thing that could happen to Open Source and the idea that Java should be Open Source. He has only one mind, which is socialist, and it does not work well with the reality that the world is basically NOT socialist. More power to Richard Stallman, although, if you THINK about it, he really has not done that much at all for Open Source except to piss a lot of people off. In truth, the only thing Richard Stallman has done is increasing his chance of getting laid. The TRUE powers and movers and important people in Open Source are those that embrace the idea that there is a relationship between commercial development and OS. Richard Stallman will retire from MIT with a fat check that allows him to live comfortably for the rest of his life without working like you and I have to do. So, when he sits in his hot tub, he can spout out platitudes. The rest of us have to work for a living.
But it's not the same thing. The Constitution says specific things about both, and they are not the same things. The ACLU maintains (and has a very good argument about it, if you care to go and read their site) that the Constitution does not guarantee individual rights to bare arms. Gun nuts will try and bend, twist, convolute, and misinterpret what the Constitution says, but that does not change what it says. The ACLU maintains that individual gun rights are a matter for congress to decide since the Constitution is clear that only states have a constitutional right to bare arms.
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
Not so at all.
From the ACLU web site:
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
I'm sorry, I have no comment on this.
Seen their stock of late? HERE
Funny, I can do without most of the stuff here at Slashdot, yet the SCO thing interests me.
What I find interesting is that Balmer refuses to say "Open Source software". I think those words have been banned from Redmond.
Read my post: Bands (MOST bands) and their management ARE NOT going to allow this. USE YOUR HEAD.
Also, a lot of bands are prefectly fine with recording bootlegs and sharing them all over the place."A lot" and in a lot of alturnative-non-commercial-still-puttin'-out-vinyl bands. Tha's fine. But any band you plunk down $35+ to see, ain't going to happen.
Second point: I just dont see anything new about recording a bootleg off the board, and selling it. Happens every day and has for YEARS.
The aging hippy boys at Mythbusters (Discovery Channel) did some experiment involving running through rain. They film out of San Francisco, so of course they had to suit up in skin tight black latex. One of the hosts is a typical out of shape geek, but the other guy is pretty (I'm so pretty, oh so pretty...) buff , so the contrast was interesting. You also could refer back to that guy who built the Tron suit. That may be what you are visualizing...
For document storage, I convert each character into an octal number, than arrange grains of sand into little piles on my basement floor. It works fine; I have no idea why anyone needs anything else.
The network admin at one of my former jobs was a Nun with a ruler (Sisters of Providence Medical Center). The tightest network operation I've ever seen.
Without commenting on the whole political subject of the RAII and it's tactics... Your argument is pretty thin. I mean, you or your housemates or your juvenile children or other dependents. In the end, if it's your internet conx, you're responsible.
This is my point: There is no harm in watching it on a Linux box. The RAII has no issues with you watching it on a Linux box. Connecting this issue to Linux politics is a red haring because the issue is not Linux, it's the DRM on the DVD (or other media). Even if Linux DVD players where a dime a dozen, and all popular DVD titles came in formats playable on these Linux DVD players, the issue would still be here. Why? It has nothing to do with your OS, and everything to do with how most people here interpret what is "fair use". Personally, I have no problem paying for the right to view a DVD or listen to a CD. But I don't toot that horn here anymore...