He is dealing with it: he's advocating a means by which to make things more fair.
It sounds to me more like he was complaining about the unfairness and expecting people to rise up and demand that they be made to be fair. I didn't see anything in his post that implied that he was willing to work toward that goal, or that it wouldn't come about on its own. However, that's just my take on what he wrote, and if you disagree, I shan't argue with you.
So we should just roll over and accept things that aren't fair, because life isn't?
No, of course not, and that's neither what I said or what I meant. What I meant was that complaining that something isn't fair isn't going to do one, tiny bit of good because life isn't fair and there's no requirement that insurance companies be fair, unless it's written into law. If you think they're not fair, you have three choices: one, you can just accept it as you said, two, you can work to change the laws and force them to be more fair or three, you can sit there and cry about it, which will do about as much good as option number one.
Anyway, if a huge chunk of the population of the richest nation in the world is unable to access modern medicine, something is seriously wrong.
I've been unemployed for several years, have several long-term medical conditions including Type II diabetes and no health insurance. However, I have access to all the medical care I need, including prescriptions, and will for the rest of my life. Of course, I did spend three years in the US Navy, a little over 30 years ago. Anybody who worries about long-term medical care can earn it the same way: the VA is there, ready, willing and able to serve, but you have to earn it, the same way I did.
Yes but isn't it the goal of organizing as a society to improve the lives of citizens?
Here in America, that's what the goal is supposed to be. Over most of the world, during most of history, the goal has been to improve the lives of the leaders at the expense of the rest of the people.
First of all, in theory forced detention is something that we only use once a person has been convicted of a crime.
Really? What do you call it, then, when a suspect is sent to jail while awaiting trial and is refused bail because of being considered a flight risk or because one of the things they're accused of is jumping bail? I think your theory requires a little more work.
When you hand them the CD, you get one of two questions. The more legally inclined will ask "Hey, is that legal?", the less legally inclined will ask "Is the key valid, or is a keygen included?"
I never have a problem with that because I always start out by telling them that Linux is a FREE operating system, and that instead of buying a license to put it on one machine, you own a copy and can give it to anybody you want. It's possible that I've had less success with getting people to try it because I'm in my late '50s, and most of the folks I'm talking to about this are at least as old; younger computer users may be more flexible about their OS and not think of themselves as locked in yet.
Most of them have never heard of it. I tell people that I'm using it at home and they ask me what it is. I explain that it's a free operating system that isn't vulnerable to viruses, trojans or adware (Oh my!) and that you can get free software that can do pretty much anything you can do with Windows. Some of them are interested enough to ask a question or two, but if I offer them a live CD so that they can try it out safely, not one of them takes me up on it. Why? They're used to Windows and don't want to learn anything new.
Besides, botnets are hosted on legitimate (albeit poorly managed) machines - these machines which are already crawling would have to start to be measured in FLOPD (per day)..
So? That would have two results: first, it would make the botnet itself slow down to a crawl and second, it would (one would hope) make the poor luser trying to run the box realize that there's Something Wrong and get help.
I was about to say that he'd notice when it suddenly rebooted for (apparently) no reason at all. Then I remembered that this is Windows we're talking about; that's just normal activity.
First, you admit that the price of keeping those machines secure exceeds the total value of the machines.
No I don't. Security software and the extra time to install, upgrade and maintain it isn't anywhere near that expensive, and if it is, it shouldn't be. Of course, we're probably talking Windows here, where security is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on at the last minute. If we're talking Linux, Unix or some other real OS, it's largely built in from the ground up, making your claim even less accurate. Security isn't free, but it's nowhere near as expensive as you make it out out be.
When my sister installed Ubuntu, it took two: one for the original install and another after it downloaded and installed the proprietary nVidia drivers. Of course, that's a special case; the norm is, as you said, just once.
Depending on location and age (over 18 or not) you may be restricted as to the level of organisms you can deal with.
For some strange reason, I first read this as revering to the level of orgasms you could deal with. The scary ting is, in context it made just as much sense as what you actually wrote.
Back when I did tech support for an ISP, we were fighting to maintain our position as a common carrier. That meant refusing to monitor, censor or block any traffic of any kind because doing that would not only remove our common carrier status, it would open us to demands that we block everything that anybody didn't like. Now, of course, it's different; ISPs routinely block anything they feel like while claiming to be common carriers when it's to their advantage. Times have changed, and not, I fear, for the better.
No one wants to buy security. They want to buy something truly useful...
And there you have it, ladies, gentlemen and slashdotters, the problem in a nutshell. People don't want to buy security because they don't think it's useful. And then what happens when their site gets defaced or their database hacked? They blame the admins, that's what. They never, ever admit that it happened because they wouldn't pay the price needed to secure their machines, they just blame somebody else for not keeping them safe even though they didn't have the tools to do the job.
Thank you. I'm a software geek, not hardware, but I'm not into systems programming, more luser support. I pick things up, here and there that are useful, but I'd never claim to know everything. Live and learn, that's my motto!
As I recall, there was also the arument that grahics in the kernel risked instability that would impact the system...
How true that is! I once worked at a shop where everybody was on NT4, and my box kept blue-screening because of a bug in the graphics driver. Putting drivers like that in kernel space just to get a little more speed is downright stupid, especially when you consider that NT 4 was largely marketed as a server OS where graphics weren't exactly important. I can't help but feel, given my experience, that this isn't exactly the best of ideas.
That instructor was not only good, he was more honest than most people would have been in his position. The normal response to that situation is to write your own text book, require that all your students use it and come out with new editions regularly with only minor changes to keep them from buying used copies. Many professors have financed their retirements by doing exactly that.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds to me more like he was complaining about the unfairness and expecting people to rise up and demand that they be made to be fair. I didn't see anything in his post that implied that he was willing to work toward that goal, or that it wouldn't come about on its own. However, that's just my take on what he wrote, and if you disagree, I shan't argue with you.
No, of course not, and that's neither what I said or what I meant. What I meant was that complaining that something isn't fair isn't going to do one, tiny bit of good because life isn't fair and there's no requirement that insurance companies be fair, unless it's written into law. If you think they're not fair, you have three choices: one, you can just accept it as you said, two, you can work to change the laws and force them to be more fair or three, you can sit there and cry about it, which will do about as much good as option number one.
I've been unemployed for several years, have several long-term medical conditions including Type II diabetes and no health insurance. However, I have access to all the medical care I need, including prescriptions, and will for the rest of my life. Of course, I did spend three years in the US Navy, a little over 30 years ago. Anybody who worries about long-term medical care can earn it the same way: the VA is there, ready, willing and able to serve, but you have to earn it, the same way I did.
Here in America, that's what the goal is supposed to be. Over most of the world, during most of history, the goal has been to improve the lives of the leaders at the expense of the rest of the people.
Life is not fair. Deal with it.
How much do you want to bet that within the first week it will cut a fiber-optic line and cut part of the Martian backbone?
Really? What do you call it, then, when a suspect is sent to jail while awaiting trial and is refused bail because of being considered a flight risk or because one of the things they're accused of is jumping bail? I think your theory requires a little more work.
I never have a problem with that because I always start out by telling them that Linux is a FREE operating system, and that instead of buying a license to put it on one machine, you own a copy and can give it to anybody you want. It's possible that I've had less success with getting people to try it because I'm in my late '50s, and most of the folks I'm talking to about this are at least as old; younger computer users may be more flexible about their OS and not think of themselves as locked in yet.
Most of them have never heard of it. I tell people that I'm using it at home and they ask me what it is. I explain that it's a free operating system that isn't vulnerable to viruses, trojans or adware (Oh my!) and that you can get free software that can do pretty much anything you can do with Windows. Some of them are interested enough to ask a question or two, but if I offer them a live CD so that they can try it out safely, not one of them takes me up on it. Why? They're used to Windows and don't want to learn anything new.
You mean they haven't?
So? That would have two results: first, it would make the botnet itself slow down to a crawl and second, it would (one would hope) make the poor luser trying to run the box realize that there's Something Wrong and get help.
I was about to say that he'd notice when it suddenly rebooted for (apparently) no reason at all. Then I remembered that this is Windows we're talking about; that's just normal activity.
Are they planning on calling it "Duke Windows Forever?"
Probably log out, log in would have been enough, but Ubuntu said it wanted a restart.
No I don't. Security software and the extra time to install, upgrade and maintain it isn't anywhere near that expensive, and if it is, it shouldn't be. Of course, we're probably talking Windows here, where security is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on at the last minute. If we're talking Linux, Unix or some other real OS, it's largely built in from the ground up, making your claim even less accurate. Security isn't free, but it's nowhere near as expensive as you make it out out be.
When my sister installed Ubuntu, it took two: one for the original install and another after it downloaded and installed the proprietary nVidia drivers. Of course, that's a special case; the norm is, as you said, just once.
The only trouble with using an enterprise key is that I'm always afraid I'm going to find out too late that I've been given a red shirt.
For some strange reason, I first read this as revering to the level of orgasms you could deal with. The scary ting is, in context it made just as much sense as what you actually wrote.
Back when I did tech support for an ISP, we were fighting to maintain our position as a common carrier. That meant refusing to monitor, censor or block any traffic of any kind because doing that would not only remove our common carrier status, it would open us to demands that we block everything that anybody didn't like. Now, of course, it's different; ISPs routinely block anything they feel like while claiming to be common carriers when it's to their advantage. Times have changed, and not, I fear, for the better.
And there you have it, ladies, gentlemen and slashdotters, the problem in a nutshell. People don't want to buy security because they don't think it's useful. And then what happens when their site gets defaced or their database hacked? They blame the admins, that's what. They never, ever admit that it happened because they wouldn't pay the price needed to secure their machines, they just blame somebody else for not keeping them safe even though they didn't have the tools to do the job.
Clickedy-Click! by Simon the BOFH
It's one of the classics, and no Unix administrator's education would be complete without it.
Thank you. I'm a software geek, not hardware, but I'm not into systems programming, more luser support. I pick things up, here and there that are useful, but I'd never claim to know everything. Live and learn, that's my motto!
How true that is! I once worked at a shop where everybody was on NT4, and my box kept blue-screening because of a bug in the graphics driver. Putting drivers like that in kernel space just to get a little more speed is downright stupid, especially when you consider that NT 4 was largely marketed as a server OS where graphics weren't exactly important. I can't help but feel, given my experience, that this isn't exactly the best of ideas.
Checking, bluesuede.su is still open if you want to put up an Elvis fan site.
That instructor was not only good, he was more honest than most people would have been in his position. The normal response to that situation is to write your own text book, require that all your students use it and come out with new editions regularly with only minor changes to keep them from buying used copies. Many professors have financed their retirements by doing exactly that.