But seriously, if it's in a plain text file, then anyone with write access to the directory would be able to override their superiors' settings - and please don't suggest a suid config program.
Because we have to listen to them at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and for some of us, more often. Besides, if we don't do something, they'll come visit. ("Hi, we were just in the neighborhood, and we brought the computer by, and could you please fix it?" - meanwhile, it's out of diskspace due to all those gigs of viruses, spyware, and miscellaneous other malware.)
Once you let your family know that you know a thing or two about computers, they will never stop calling.
Okay, why do you give money to people who don't need it? Is it morally right to just give to those with money? So why do you do it?
Because you want to eat, and the way you get food is... dum dum dum... you buy it. Buying food is not two separate gifts, it is one two-way exchange.
Is it right to send thousands off to die? no. Did the allies do that? no. No military "sends kids off to die" - they send soldiers out to accomplish objectives. Dying is a risk, not a goal.
When you "worked the worst job in the world", if you didn't think it was worth it, you would have quit. If you didn't get something (money) out of it that you though was worth the cost of doing that work, you wouldn't have done the work.
If cause and effect were separable, then they wouldn't be cause and effect. If the result of an action could occur without the action, then it wouldn't be the result of that action.
Do you think that it is wrong to work? Or that there is somehow a moral "commandment" against doing anything unpleasant? If so, then I pity your future children (may they be few) and their unchanged diapers, unwashed bodies, and unfed stomachs. An unpleasant job is not a moral wrong, it is simply an unpalatable cost which you may or may not choose to pay, in exchange for money. Do you think that companies like paying their hard-won cash to employees? Is it wrong for employers to pay their employees? No, it is simply half of an exchange.
In a military situation, a commander weighs the risks against the potential benefits. If that commander feels that the potential benefits (saving hundreds of thousands or a million lives) outweighs the costs (losing thousands or tens of thousands of lives), then, given that the US had a fully volunteer army until Vietnam, the exchange would be one person willing to trade his life for the lives of ten or a hundred or however many people. What?!?!?? The person was willing? Wouldn't that make going to war suicide? Except that dying wasn't the point - saving the lives of others was the point. You can't separate the two parts of the exchange without causing great harm to your understanding of the situation - by your separation of the two, and your characterisation of the war, you would call it a moral wrong to save a life.
Most things in life are trades - you trade time for money, money for food, food for lack of hunger, lack of hunger for cellular energy, cellular energy for activity (such as work).
In Microsoft's case, whoever put in the cracked software probably felt that (cost_of_legal_acquisition>(probability_of_discove ry*cost_of_discovery) - and fortunately for him/her/them/it, we still don't know the name of whoever put in the warez. Of course, if MS is found legally liable, they'll no doubt track down that employee and throw him out on his arse, but until he's identified, he still saves on effort compared to legally acquiring the software.
Humans behave according to a system of perceived costs and benefits. That's why water is worth more in a desert and gasoline in California. It's a simple matter of cost and benefit.
And I'm sure that if that happens, RIAA will cry internet lawlessness and use it as an excuse to push through even more draconian regulation of the net.
so if I copy your posts under the name commodoreslaot, that's fine?
The problem isn't that they're doing the same thing as the real MST3k show. The problem isn't that they're using almost the same name. The problem is that they're doing about the same thing with about the same name.
Okay, how about we go over how the multi-car discounts work: Let's say you're an American male with one wife and 2.5 children, three cars, and a dog. The 2.5 children don't drive, and neither does the dog. You get a 2-3% discount because you have three vehicles under the same insurance. Okay, assuming that the insurance company is making, I don't work in the industry but I'll assume a reasonable 5-10% profit per policy, so they're still making a profit, just not as much.
Further enhancing the attractiveness of such a setup is the inherent stop-loss function of accidents - supposing that you get into a collision, you have, depending on your habits, let's say a 15-20% probability of being in the same vehicle as your wife, thus requiring double medical payouts but you'd have that problem anyway, and, fortunately, you only wrecked one vehicle. Supposing that you both crashed, that's two cars damaged, two drivers potentially injured, and sufficient injury to keep you off the road and/or suspension of your license will render the third vehicle safe from use. (I would imagine people like Jay Leno would get a similar discount because if he kills himself in one car, he can't very well go kill himself in another)
Monday is the border between weekend and week. Yes, you have to go to work, but you have a little of that weekend rest animating your bones, and a little of that weekend love for the FCC. It's kind of like the way you can hate the FCC on saturday morning, because you still have a little of the week in your system.
Just relax, it'll be back to normal in the morning.
Sounds like the best solution would be to check for the kernel taint flag during loading, make sure the flag works, and display the message at the end. Either that, or only show the message for the first tainted module.
It shouldn't be too hard to obviate the need for this kind of workaround.
Why should businesses be able to do what they want? Why? For that matter, why not say that any/. user should have open access to the/. database?
Oh, wait, that's a really bad idea.
Law is basically a compromise between the perceived ideal and, more importantly, the pragmatic realities of life. If people could live in perfect accordance with the principles of honor, fairness, justice, mercy, &c then we wouldn't need to legislate things like this.
Unfortunately, human beings will tend to see potential advantages from a pragmatic point of view - i.e. what is the cost/benefit of a given action, what is the ROI, essentially (((probability of payoff) * (estimated payoff)) / ((probability of loss) * (estimated loss)))
basically, payoff/loss guides Microsoft - If they are more likely to make money than lose money by a given action, they will do it.
Recall the reason that we have police - people will break the law if they believe they can do so without getting caught. They will continue to break the law even if caught unless the consequences of breaking the law are sufficiently great as to serve as sufficient deterrent in the mind of the average citizen. This is why people get repeat traffic tickets - they don't believe that they will be caught often enough and fined enough for it to change their behavior.
As a citizen, I have the pragmatic concern that I do not desire that companies extort money from me. As this concern is pretty common, likeminded people have legislated against common methods of such. In the U.S., trusts and cartels have been and have been perceived to have been a significant problem in this area, and therefore we have laws to restrict this sort of behavior.
Japan, however, has a different view of how business should be organised. Japanese businesses are bound into keiretsu much more tightly that the trusts which U.S. law was formed to combat - unfortunately, there are a few downsides to this, such as difficulties in agreeing on a uniform DVD format, but as a whole it works pretty well. This binding, and the mindset behind it, should tell you something - namely, that Japanese law really doesn't have much in the way of anti-trust type laws. (The American occupational government broke up much of this after WWII, but the keiretsu recoalesced quite rapidly.) The organisation of businesses into keiretsu has historically been successful because of the ingrained code of honor that permeates the Japanese culture. If/as this changes, the keiretsu will either have to diminish or assume greater control of government, as has happened in the U.S.
Of course, one could argue along with people like Adam Smith that pragmatism is also the impetus for laissez-faire capitalism, but I think that a moderate position is most effective.
Slashdot Mirror
>Most windows computers are not used for spam. Given the explosion in worms with SMTP mass-mailing engines in them, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Just a few, but each one opens up into another panel.
It wouldn't be too hard with XML :p
But seriously, if it's in a plain text file, then anyone with write access to the directory would be able to override their superiors' settings - and please don't suggest a suid config program.
The expression "could care less" should be taken as being short for "could care less, but only if paid to". Now, both ways work.
Because we have to listen to them at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and for some of us, more often. Besides, if we don't do something, they'll come visit. ("Hi, we were just in the neighborhood, and we brought the computer by, and could you please fix it?" - meanwhile, it's out of diskspace due to all those gigs of viruses, spyware, and miscellaneous other malware.)
Once you let your family know that you know a thing or two about computers, they will never stop calling.
Oh, man, check out the processors on those SGI machines. Rowr!
"You're saying my computer pirated Britney Spears? Please. My computer has much better taste than that. Britney wouldn't get further than /dev/nul."
Nah, a self-aware computer might actually be helpful.
Yeah, but the ping times!
Okay, why do you give money to people who don't need it? Is it morally right to just give to those with money? So why do you do it?
e ry*cost_of_discovery) - and fortunately for him/her/them/it, we still don't know the name of whoever put in the warez. Of course, if MS is found legally liable, they'll no doubt track down that employee and throw him out on his arse, but until he's identified, he still saves on effort compared to legally acquiring the software.
Because you want to eat, and the way you get food is... dum dum dum... you buy it. Buying food is not two separate gifts, it is one two-way exchange.
Is it right to send thousands off to die? no.
Did the allies do that? no.
No military "sends kids off to die" - they send soldiers out to accomplish objectives. Dying is a risk, not a goal.
When you "worked the worst job in the world", if you didn't think it was worth it, you would have quit. If you didn't get something (money) out of it that you though was worth the cost of doing that work, you wouldn't have done the work.
If cause and effect were separable, then they wouldn't be cause and effect. If the result of an action could occur without the action, then it wouldn't be the result of that action.
Do you think that it is wrong to work? Or that there is somehow a moral "commandment" against doing anything unpleasant? If so, then I pity your future children (may they be few) and their unchanged diapers, unwashed bodies, and unfed stomachs. An unpleasant job is not a moral wrong, it is simply an unpalatable cost which you may or may not choose to pay, in exchange for money. Do you think that companies like paying their hard-won cash to employees? Is it wrong for employers to pay their employees? No, it is simply half of an exchange.
In a military situation, a commander weighs the risks against the potential benefits. If that commander feels that the potential benefits (saving hundreds of thousands or a million lives) outweighs the costs (losing thousands or tens of thousands of lives), then, given that the US had a fully volunteer army until Vietnam, the exchange would be one person willing to trade his life for the lives of ten or a hundred or however many people. What?!?!?? The person was willing? Wouldn't that make going to war suicide? Except that dying wasn't the point - saving the lives of others was the point. You can't separate the two parts of the exchange without causing great harm to your understanding of the situation - by your separation of the two, and your characterisation of the war, you would call it a moral wrong to save a life.
Most things in life are trades - you trade time for money, money for food, food for lack of hunger, lack of hunger for cellular energy, cellular energy for activity (such as work).
In Microsoft's case, whoever put in the cracked software probably felt that (cost_of_legal_acquisition>(probability_of_discov
Humans behave according to a system of perceived costs and benefits. That's why water is worth more in a desert and gasoline in California. It's a simple matter of cost and benefit.
And I'm sure that if that happens, RIAA will cry internet lawlessness and use it as an excuse to push through even more draconian regulation of the net.
Does this mean that lynx is still vulnerable?
And the goatse.cx site was suspended. It's not there anymore.
So I guess we'll have to raise the money to replace it, eh?
And how much knowledge does it take to change a flat?
1: jack up car
2: take off old tire
3: put on new tire
4: let down jack
I mean, that's the equivalent of swapping a CD, basically.
so if I copy your posts under the name commodoreslaot, that's fine? The problem isn't that they're doing the same thing as the real MST3k show. The problem isn't that they're using almost the same name. The problem is that they're doing about the same thing with about the same name.
Dude, windows has its own system. Try googling windows terminal services, or check out www.microsoft.com.
They'll start again at 802.11aa, 802.11ab, 802.11ac, &c.
You don't think the FBI monitors the mafia? It's kind of, er, a pastime for FBI agents to spy on organized crime.
take two. Use one for the message and one to transmit two more pads. lather, rinse, repeat.
Even Microsoft had to turn to C to finish spelling out Visual BasiC
Okay, how about we go over how the multi-car discounts work: Let's say you're an American male with one wife and 2.5 children, three cars, and a dog. The 2.5 children don't drive, and neither does the dog. You get a 2-3% discount because you have three vehicles under the same insurance. Okay, assuming that the insurance company is making, I don't work in the industry but I'll assume a reasonable 5-10% profit per policy, so they're still making a profit, just not as much.
Further enhancing the attractiveness of such a setup is the inherent stop-loss function of accidents - supposing that you get into a collision, you have, depending on your habits, let's say a 15-20% probability of being in the same vehicle as your wife, thus requiring double medical payouts but you'd have that problem anyway, and, fortunately, you only wrecked one vehicle. Supposing that you both crashed, that's two cars damaged, two drivers potentially injured, and sufficient injury to keep you off the road and/or suspension of your license will render the third vehicle safe from use. (I would imagine people like Jay Leno would get a similar discount because if he kills himself in one car, he can't very well go kill himself in another)
Monday is the border between weekend and week. Yes, you have to go to work, but you have a little of that weekend rest animating your bones, and a little of that weekend love for the FCC. It's kind of like the way you can hate the FCC on saturday morning, because you still have a little of the week in your system. Just relax, it'll be back to normal in the morning.
AROS by any other name...
Sounds like the best solution would be to check for the kernel taint flag during loading, make sure the flag works, and display the message at the end. Either that, or only show the message for the first tainted module. It shouldn't be too hard to obviate the need for this kind of workaround.
Why should businesses be able to do what they want? Why? For that matter, why not say that any /. user should have open access to the /. database?
Oh, wait, that's a really bad idea.
Law is basically a compromise between the perceived ideal and, more importantly, the pragmatic realities of life. If people could live in perfect accordance with the principles of honor, fairness, justice, mercy, &c then we wouldn't need to legislate things like this.
Unfortunately, human beings will tend to see potential advantages from a pragmatic point of view - i.e. what is the cost/benefit of a given action, what is the ROI, essentially (((probability of payoff) * (estimated payoff)) / ((probability of loss) * (estimated loss)))
basically, payoff/loss guides Microsoft - If they are more likely to make money than lose money by a given action, they will do it.
Recall the reason that we have police - people will break the law if they believe they can do so without getting caught. They will continue to break the law even if caught unless the consequences of breaking the law are sufficiently great as to serve as sufficient deterrent in the mind of the average citizen. This is why people get repeat traffic tickets - they don't believe that they will be caught often enough and fined enough for it to change their behavior.
As a citizen, I have the pragmatic concern that I do not desire that companies extort money from me. As this concern is pretty common, likeminded people have legislated against common methods of such. In the U.S., trusts and cartels have been and have been perceived to have been a significant problem in this area, and therefore we have laws to restrict this sort of behavior.
Japan, however, has a different view of how business should be organised. Japanese businesses are bound into keiretsu much more tightly that the trusts which U.S. law was formed to combat - unfortunately, there are a few downsides to this, such as difficulties in agreeing on a uniform DVD format, but as a whole it works pretty well. This binding, and the mindset behind it, should tell you something - namely, that Japanese law really doesn't have much in the way of anti-trust type laws. (The American occupational government broke up much of this after WWII, but the keiretsu recoalesced quite rapidly.) The organisation of businesses into keiretsu has historically been successful because of the ingrained code of honor that permeates the Japanese culture. If/as this changes, the keiretsu will either have to diminish or assume greater control of government, as has happened in the U.S.
Of course, one could argue along with people like Adam Smith that pragmatism is also the impetus for laissez-faire capitalism, but I think that a moderate position is most effective.