Shredders are a form of technology, last time I checked. And, seeing as how this story comes straight from the "buy-a-shredder" department, it is directly related to shredders and is thus quite applicable to technology in general.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I don't contend that Diebold's methods are legit, nor do I claim that we experienced nothing but prosperity under the Clinton administration. The point I'm trying to make is that you're over-reacting to an issue that does not merit such a level of paranoia.
In your initial post, you suggested nothing short of a violent revolution in response to an economic recession. Our government isn't perfect, but, compared to that of most nations, it works pretty damn well. So we have a few corrupt politicians; since when haven't politicians been corrupt? I'm not saying we should just sit here and take it. All I'm saying is that "burning everything" isn't a practical nor rational solution to anything, let alone the recent slump of the tech industry.
With regards to your spiel on Diebold: yes, something shady is definitely going on, and the public has been made aware. Their election system is insecure, and they've admitted it. Now, if you would, please tell me what the fuck any of that has to do with jobs being lost in the tech industry? I don't see the connection.
Their big worry now is, "Holy Fuck! What happens when the pendulum slams back to the left!" Sure, they can flee the country and take their money with them, but what do they do if a reactionary leftist comes into power and gets to command the world's nastiest military force? Their wealth exists only at the pleasure of military force, and now, suddenly, they no longer control the preeminent military force.
Job losses in the tech industry and an overthrow of the government do not go hand in hand.
Ergo, the Diebold solution. A preemptive strike against democracy. Why worry about how the masses will vote when you can hack into Access instead? And who's going to tell? ABC News?
But, hey... if you really think you can "hack into Access" and prevent Bush from being re-elected in 2004, then I'm your new best friend. Unfortunately, elections of importance are still being done the old fashioned way.
They put into motion a series of events that have conspired to emaciate the economy, and with it, any hopes of their further aggregating power.
Keep up the conspiracy theories, friend. I'm sure you'll prove them someday.
The penalties aren't for the spam he sent, but rather for spoofing the sender's address. Many (hundreds of thousands) of the spam emails he sent out were to bad/non-existent addresses, and were bounced back to the real addresses he faked as his own. The people who received the "returned" emails are suing him, not those that got spammed.
That being said, I agree that the maximum penalties are harsh, to say the least. Then again, they are maximum penalities, and I'd be surprised if he goes to jail for more than 5-10 years, if at all. There's no doubt that he caused damages, but not 117 million dollars worth.
This just in... our sources have just informed us that there are business executives out there who lie, cheat, and even steal! I'll take this oppurtunity to warn all decent folk out there to think twice when making dealings with such evil, evil men.
Seriously though, since when is the common practice of "savvy businessmen" screwing trusting people out of money news?
It should be GNU/Linux as Linux is the kernel, and GNU is the shell. But most of the general public doesn't even know what Linux is, let alone GNU or the GPL.
It seems that IBM's goal is to make all that change.
No shit. Any IT Manager/Systems Admin with half a brain can see right through SCO's bogus claims. What I'm more interested in finding out is what the management (e.g. CEO, president, board) of a company running Linux servers thinks about it, assuming they're up to speed with the whole issue.
After all, it doesn't really matter if the IT department is still willing to maintain its deployment of Linux; though they'll undoubtedly have a say in the matter; the final decision will more than likely rest with the management.
It's newsworthy because Mandrake only just recently climbed out of bankruptcy. The fact that a major computer manufacturer has decided to preload Mandrake on one of their business-line models as an alternative to Windows suggests that the company's future might be brighter than many expected.
Regardless of how the bums acquired said quarters, the quarters become their property upon acquisition. If someone gives me $1,000, and I blow it all on miscellanea, I've still spent that $1,000. And, whatever I spent it on cost me $1,000 and was not free. The bums spent their quarters to get a room for the night. Had they just broken into the bathrooms and stayed for the night, you might make the case that they were acquired for free.
Unfortunately, biometric templates are currently considered to be non-identifiable, much like a password hash. This means that legislation gets passed to require hundreds of millions of people to have their biometrics encoded onto their passports.
Those two statements seem to be contradictory. If biometric templates are considered to be "non-identifiable" (much like lie-detector tests are inadmissable in court due to unreliability), why would legislation be passed to require them to be used in passports? A United States passport is often considered the most reliable form of identification for a U.S. citizen. I don't see why the government would risk compromising the passport's reliability by incorporating into it a supposed "unreliable" technology.
Here is why: They want to collect royalties. They cannot collect royalties if the code in question is removed and replaced with "clean" code, which is what will happen within minutes of them announcing exactly which lines of code are in violation.
All right. Let's say SCO does have a legit claim and does want to collect royalties. Even so, at one point or another, they'll have to reveal the "code in question" to, at the very least, the parties involved in the lawsuit, if not to the general public as well. If they never reveal said code, then how the hell can they prove that it was copied? That would be akin to accusing someone of stealing without even specifying that which was stolen.
Now, even when they do reveal said code, they are claiming that damges have already taken place. So, even replacing the code with "clean" code will not suffice to pay for past damages, though it would prevent future infractions. If SCO wins, the judge would likely rule that either the code be removed or end users of Linux pay royalties to SCO. Again, this is only a speculation; I am certain, however, that SCO will be unable to force Linux users to keep their "illegal" version of Linux so that they would have to pay royalties.
In any case, I and many others feel that SCO's claims are bogus and that they've no chance in court. Even if the code is, in fact, copied, it still remains unclear whether or not SCO really has the rights to it and, even if they do, whether or not average Linux users are in violation.
Right, right, I didn't see the link... But, doesn't this mean that SCO's contract rights only give them a case against IBM, and doesn't allow them to target strangers (i.e. the Linux community at large)?
But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes.
According to this, SCO only has a license. The copyrights, patents, and ownership reside with Novell.
With IPv4, China has only 22 million IP addresses for its population of 1.3 billion people. Last year, it had about 17 million Internet subscribers, and the figure will hit 62.5 million in 2007. Japan and Korea will also run out of addresses soon, she said.
Regardless of ratios, the fact is that China, Japan, and Korea are simply running out of addresses. Though costly, implementing IPv6 is a necessity and will take care of the address shortage. Besides, most of the newer OS's (XP, Linux 2.2 or higher, OS/X) already have IPv6 built in.
Don't mean to be nitpicky, but if you'd bothered to read the whole article you'd have noticed that he mentioned a mainframe program called DATAMOD that dates back to October 1971, which is over 30 years ago. As the main focus of his article was PC applications, however, his article did not give much information on mainframe apps.
Are you stupid or something? I mean, really... You think that "If the govenment could round up everybody who had a positive reaction to a picture of Osama Bin Laden right now" they would do it? Fuck no. This technology may have that capability, but that doesn't mean anyone's going to do it. Just 'cause the technology exists doesn't mean we have to abuse it. All I'm saying is that it seems useful to have the ability to find patterns in people's thoughts; the technology can be used for good, such as mapping certain portions of the brain about which we know very little. You've got to be really freakin' paranoid if you think a useful tool like this spells an Orwellian future for the U.S. It's bad policy that invades privacy, not bad technology.
And, just so you know, I'm familiar with everything you've mentioned as far as history is concerned. Fortunately for both of us, this country has learned from many of its mistakes, including the Japanese internment and Red Scare in the 1950's. That's why you don't see Arabs and Muslims living in the US being locked up simply because they're Arab or Muslim. And no one is going to rob you of your thoughts with this technology. Ever heard of the Constitution? We already have technology that can invade a person's privacy, but the Constitution includes amendments that protect an individual's personal privacy. And, as long as our government upholds the Consititution, your privacy won't be violated no matter what kind of technology exists.
At what price indeed? Perhaps I'm being a bit narrow-minded, but I see the benefits of this technology far outweighing the negative aspects of it, if any. I mean, maybe we're getting a little ahead of ourselves by assuming that the article can "read people's thoughts." I saw no indication of this. All I gathered was that it could measure brain activity in certain areas and give indications of merely the types of cognitions being produced, such as various emotions. As the data gathered from the experiments is mostly qualitative anyway, the whole technology's accuracy is comparable to that of a lie detector test. This technology shows promise and should be pursued.
Slashdot Mirror
Shredders are a form of technology, last time I checked. And, seeing as how this story comes straight from the "buy-a-shredder" department, it is directly related to shredders and is thus quite applicable to technology in general.
Go buy a shredder and port Linux to it today!
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I don't contend that Diebold's methods are legit, nor do I claim that we experienced nothing but prosperity under the Clinton administration. The point I'm trying to make is that you're over-reacting to an issue that does not merit such a level of paranoia.
In your initial post, you suggested nothing short of a violent revolution in response to an economic recession. Our government isn't perfect, but, compared to that of most nations, it works pretty damn well. So we have a few corrupt politicians; since when haven't politicians been corrupt? I'm not saying we should just sit here and take it. All I'm saying is that "burning everything" isn't a practical nor rational solution to anything, let alone the recent slump of the tech industry.
With regards to your spiel on Diebold: yes, something shady is definitely going on, and the public has been made aware. Their election system is insecure, and they've admitted it. Now, if you would, please tell me what the fuck any of that has to do with jobs being lost in the tech industry? I don't see the connection.
Their big worry now is, "Holy Fuck! What happens when the pendulum slams back to the left!" Sure, they can flee the country and take their money with them, but what do they do if a reactionary leftist comes into power and gets to command the world's nastiest military force? Their wealth exists only at the pleasure of military force, and now, suddenly, they no longer control the preeminent military force.
Job losses in the tech industry and an overthrow of the government do not go hand in hand.
Ergo, the Diebold solution. A preemptive strike against democracy. Why worry about how the masses will vote when you can hack into Access instead? And who's going to tell? ABC News?
But, hey... if you really think you can "hack into Access" and prevent Bush from being re-elected in 2004, then I'm your new best friend. Unfortunately, elections of importance are still being done the old fashioned way.
They put into motion a series of events that have conspired to emaciate the economy, and with it, any hopes of their further aggregating power.
Keep up the conspiracy theories, friend. I'm sure you'll prove them someday.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The penalties aren't for the spam he sent, but rather for spoofing the sender's address. Many (hundreds of thousands) of the spam emails he sent out were to bad/non-existent addresses, and were bounced back to the real addresses he faked as his own. The people who received the "returned" emails are suing him, not those that got spammed.
That being said, I agree that the maximum penalties are harsh, to say the least. Then again, they are maximum penalities, and I'd be surprised if he goes to jail for more than 5-10 years, if at all. There's no doubt that he caused damages, but not 117 million dollars worth.
This just in... our sources have just informed us that there are business executives out there who lie, cheat, and even steal! I'll take this oppurtunity to warn all decent folk out there to think twice when making dealings with such evil, evil men.
Seriously though, since when is the common practice of "savvy businessmen" screwing trusting people out of money news?
I suppose you don't call your self "Overly Critical Guy" for nothin'...
It should be GNU/Linux as Linux is the kernel, and GNU is the shell.
But most of the general public doesn't even know what Linux is, let alone GNU or the GPL.
It seems that IBM's goal is to make all that change.
No shit. Any IT Manager/Systems Admin with half a brain can see right through SCO's bogus claims. What I'm more interested in finding out is what the management (e.g. CEO, president, board) of a company running Linux servers thinks about it, assuming they're up to speed with the whole issue.
After all, it doesn't really matter if the IT department is still willing to maintain its deployment of Linux; though they'll undoubtedly have a say in the matter; the final decision will more than likely rest with the management.
It's newsworthy because Mandrake only just recently climbed out of bankruptcy. The fact that a major computer manufacturer has decided to preload Mandrake on one of their business-line models as an alternative to Windows suggests that the company's future might be brighter than many expected.
Regardless of how the bums acquired said quarters, the quarters become their property upon acquisition. If someone gives me $1,000, and I blow it all on miscellanea, I've still spent that $1,000. And, whatever I spent it on cost me $1,000 and was not free. The bums spent their quarters to get a room for the night. Had they just broken into the bathrooms and stayed for the night, you might make the case that they were acquired for free.
Unfortunately, biometric templates are currently considered to be non-identifiable, much like a password hash. This means that legislation gets passed to require hundreds of millions of people to have their biometrics encoded onto their passports.
Those two statements seem to be contradictory. If biometric templates are considered to be "non-identifiable" (much like lie-detector tests are inadmissable in court due to unreliability), why would legislation be passed to require them to be used in passports? A United States passport is often considered the most reliable form of identification for a U.S. citizen. I don't see why the government would risk compromising the passport's reliability by incorporating into it a supposed "unreliable" technology.
Here is why: They want to collect royalties. They cannot collect royalties if the code in question is removed and replaced with "clean" code, which is what will happen within minutes of them announcing exactly which lines of code are in violation.
All right. Let's say SCO does have a legit claim and does want to collect royalties. Even so, at one point or another, they'll have to reveal the "code in question" to, at the very least, the parties involved in the lawsuit, if not to the general public as well. If they never reveal said code, then how the hell can they prove that it was copied? That would be akin to accusing someone of stealing without even specifying that which was stolen.
Now, even when they do reveal said code, they are claiming that damges have already taken place. So, even replacing the code with "clean" code will not suffice to pay for past damages, though it would prevent future infractions. If SCO wins, the judge would likely rule that either the code be removed or end users of Linux pay royalties to SCO. Again, this is only a speculation; I am certain, however, that SCO will be unable to force Linux users to keep their "illegal" version of Linux so that they would have to pay royalties.
In any case, I and many others feel that SCO's claims are bogus and that they've no chance in court. Even if the code is, in fact, copied, it still remains unclear whether or not SCO really has the rights to it and, even if they do, whether or not average Linux users are in violation.
Right, right, I didn't see the link... But, doesn't this mean that SCO's contract rights only give them a case against IBM, and doesn't allow them to target strangers (i.e. the Linux community at large)?
But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes.
According to this, SCO only has a license. The copyrights, patents, and ownership reside with Novell.
With IPv4, China has only 22 million IP addresses for its population of 1.3 billion people. Last year, it had about 17 million Internet subscribers, and the figure will hit 62.5 million in 2007. Japan and Korea will also run out of addresses soon, she said.
Regardless of ratios, the fact is that China, Japan, and Korea are simply running out of addresses. Though costly, implementing IPv6 is a necessity and will take care of the address shortage. Besides, most of the newer OS's (XP, Linux 2.2 or higher, OS/X) already have IPv6 built in.
Not so tiny.
From text of article:
"If a general has a problem with his Web browser, then I fix it," Cluff says.
"How do you fix it?" I ask.
"I consult Microsoft online help," he replies.
Why is this modded down? I see no flamebait whatsoever in his comment. Should be modded +4 "Insightful" at the very least.
It's a cryin' shame when moderator points fall into the wrong hands.
Don't mean to be nitpicky, but if you'd bothered to read the whole article you'd have noticed that he mentioned a mainframe program called DATAMOD that dates back to October 1971, which is over 30 years ago. As the main focus of his article was PC applications, however, his article did not give much information on mainframe apps.
'Cause he doesn't know he's black.
(Had to be said.)
8 hours a day for 500 days is about equal to 15 hours a day for 10 months (approximately 300 days).
Are you stupid or something? I mean, really... You think that "If the govenment could round up everybody who had a positive reaction to a picture of Osama Bin Laden right now" they would do it? Fuck no. This technology may have that capability, but that doesn't mean anyone's going to do it. Just 'cause the technology exists doesn't mean we have to abuse it. All I'm saying is that it seems useful to have the ability to find patterns in people's thoughts; the technology can be used for good, such as mapping certain portions of the brain about which we know very little. You've got to be really freakin' paranoid if you think a useful tool like this spells an Orwellian future for the U.S. It's bad policy that invades privacy, not bad technology.
And, just so you know, I'm familiar with everything you've mentioned as far as history is concerned. Fortunately for both of us, this country has learned from many of its mistakes, including the Japanese internment and Red Scare in the 1950's. That's why you don't see Arabs and Muslims living in the US being locked up simply because they're Arab or Muslim. And no one is going to rob you of your thoughts with this technology. Ever heard of the Constitution? We already have technology that can invade a person's privacy, but the Constitution includes amendments that protect an individual's personal privacy. And, as long as our government upholds the Consititution, your privacy won't be violated no matter what kind of technology exists.
At what price indeed? Perhaps I'm being a bit narrow-minded, but I see the benefits of this technology far outweighing the negative aspects of it, if any. I mean, maybe we're getting a little ahead of ourselves by assuming that the article can "read people's thoughts." I saw no indication of this. All I gathered was that it could measure brain activity in certain areas and give indications of merely the types of cognitions being produced, such as various emotions. As the data gathered from the experiments is mostly qualitative anyway, the whole technology's accuracy is comparable to that of a lie detector test. This technology shows promise and should be pursued.
It's called sarcasm. Perhaps you've heard of it? I believe my comment on "pulling a better film out of my ass" made it clear enough.