This is a very complicated and scary topic...the potential benefit is only matched by the potential for tragedy. One thing I'm sure of: This is one new technology you *don't* want to jump on as soon as it's available. Wait until the first 'g-e' kids are grown, and see how they work out first, then consider your options.
Why is it that people *love* to use the 'starving children' approach when they go after the space program? Why is it that I never hear that argument when we're talking, say, what to do with 800 billion extra dollors? Starving children? Fuck 'em...we want our tax cut! Let's see: 800 billion dollors, divided by 11 million kids...we could get them each a 'Happy Meal' (tm) and a vitamin once a day for the next forty years with 800 billion dollors.
As for b), yeah that sucks...but is it NASA's fault?? No. They are not allowed to patent products, according to some obscure government regulation. Too bad. They could have paid for their own funding several times over if they could...and have plenty left over for Happy Meals.
What the government needs to protect itself against a 'cyberterrorist' attack is exactly the same thing as what a major corporation needs. The government needs well-trained security experts to make sure the networks are secure. A government is no different from a high-profile corporation in this sense. There is no law which congress can pass and enforce that will prevent people from attacking government computers. And why should the government try? If some kid cracks a government web site or computer, his primary goal is going to be to say to the world 'I did it! Look at me!'. Think of it as a free security audit. Patch the hole and let the kid try again.
What the government needs to protect itself against a 'cyberterrorist' attack is exactly the same thing as what a major corporation needs. The government needs well-trained security experts to make sure the networks are secure. A government is no different from a high-profile corporation in this sense. There is no law which congress can pass and enforce that will prevent people from attacking government computers. And why should the government try? If some kid cracks a government web site or computer, his primary goal is going to be to say to the world 'I did it! Look at me!'. Think of it as a free security audit. Patch the hole and let the kid try again.
instrument for US one processing system t a capable processing host executing a first instruction ajust ajud functioning instruction a different instruction ajust that est translates first instruction ajust processing host including provisory circuit for storing memory armazen to ger until a determination that a sequence translates instruction execut without exception or error processing host, permanent circuit for storing provisory memory armazen stored when a determination est faç that a sequence translates instruction execut without exception or error processing host, and circuit for eliminating provisory memory armazen stored when a determination est faç that a sequence translates instruction to ger an exception error in the processor.
That's from english->portugese->english
Re:Civil Rights in the UK
on
Dear Mr. Straw
·
· Score: 1
I may be talking out of an unnamed oriface here, but the fifth amendment doesn't apply if you're asked to provide information which incriminates someone else...i.e., the person could be required to hand over info which incriminates Mr. Clinton, but not info which incriminates herself. At least, that's how I understand it. Plus I think that the case you are talking about was a grand jury investigation, which has somewhat different structure than a regular court.
Re:What are you so damn afraid of?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
Giving broad wire-tapping capabilities to the FBI, or to anyone else for that matter, doesn't help society at all! The ability to listen to or observe anyone easily, and without accountability or permission is an extremely powerful tool. And like all tools, wiretapping has a potential for abuse. Giving the FBI the ability to tap digital lines is not a problem at all. It's the power to do so without permission, at random if they so choose that is the problem. As another poster pointed out, what happens when the FBI starts tapping people just because they disagree with the government? 'We could stop another Waco, or another Federal Building bombing' they'll say. The people they will be tapping is anyone who disagrees with the government. Like everyone on this thread. You get put on 'the list'. Every now and then, an FBI agent listens in on your private converstaions. Scans your e-mails. Gathering dirt on your oh-so-innocent self. Remember those mp3's you downloaded last week? Look at a couple of nudie pics maybe? Download some warez? Schedule lunch with an old flame? Your gay lover? Call up an old friend and remeneisce about your pot-smoking, drug taking college days? All in your record. Everyone breaks the law. Even if you don't, there are some things that you want private. Things that you don't want 'accidentally' leaked to the press, your wife, your boss, if you get 'out of hand'.
No, I'm not saying the FBI does this. I'm not saying they would even want to do this. But if the power is there, without any safeguards, it can be used against you. That's why the police are required to get a warrant for a wiretap. They must have a warrant to enter your home, which describes exactly what they are searching for. Sure, they might catch a few more criminals that way, but at the cost of trampling everyone else's rights. Not worth it.
So does the one where the dirty old man gets his brain stuck in the body of his gorgeous (dead) secretary, and proceeds to get all emotional and weepy. Can't remember the title of that one.
Those both sucked. Hard. In My Ever So Humble Opinion anyway.
I loved most of Heinlein's other books, but those two were just terrible.
" In number 36 of 9.9.1999 (page 9919) Linux under the document reference 399 36 517,6 in the category software is listed."
Well, I think the significance of this is pretty obvious...
On the first line, we start with 36. 3+6 is nine, and 9*4 is 36. Then you have 2 nines, followed by a 1, and 3 more nines. That makes 5 nines...1 less than 4 nines! The second line is even more interesting. The first digit is '3' while the last is '6'...36 again! With another 36 in the middle! There are a total of 10 nines in the whole thing, and 1+0=1. The number of beginnings, unity, the antichrist, and cream cheese. Add all the digits in both lines, and you get 132. 1+3+2=6, which when you turn it upside-down looks kind of like a nine. You know what this means, don't you??!
I trust Redhat more than any other company I've dealt with (though I must admit I've only dealt with them in a very small way).
I don't follow your logic that IPO==bad management. Is it wrong for them to make money off of Linux? You say much of your career is based on Redhat. So you make a living partly with their products, right? For which you've paid them, what? Probably not much, directly. But by bringing people to use Redhat Linux, you've probably benefitted Redhat and Linux. Much the same way that Redhat benefits the Linux community in part by bringing people to linux. What's the problem.
As for the Raster issue, it's usually considered in bad taste to comment on a former employee. What if Bob Young *doesn't* wish Raster well? Best not to say anything either way. Some confirmation of Radhat's plans in the GUI area would be nice, but if Raster no longer works for Redhat, he isn't exactly qualified to be a spokesman for their future plans. Redhat may still be considering it's options in that area.
As for your CD's, I don't see why you need permission from Redhat to distribute the software. As it says in the interview...'emil's Nifty-neato-keen Linux Distrib - derived from Redhat Linux'. Maybe I don't fully understand the situation though.
I got M2 today. To bad I didn't get that one. Most of the ones I *did* get seemed fair, but this one doesn't. One recommendation - some ability to easily see the context when being an M2 would be nice... i.e. being able to go up and down the message tree. I didn't see any easy way to do that.
I disagree. I think it's a great thing that Redhat can make money off of linux. As long as they *don't* go the proprietary route. Having a corporation that is based solely on linux goes a *long* way toward improving linux credibility. On the other hand, if they *do* go proprietary (like a closed source installer (which they aren't doing)) then screw 'em.
>I don't mind AC's making (apparently outlandish) assertions like this, but a LITTLE detail to back it up would make it sound less like a troll, and more like a biped.
I guess I'll just have to disagree with you there. I liked both SPR, and SL...have yet to see EotS. They weren't as deep as Kubrick by any stretch, and they weren't meant to be as cerebral. But I still think they are good movies. Speilberg can't touch Kubrick at what Kubrick does best. But Kubrick can't top Speilberg at his thing. And neither of them has really tried. Until now. This could be a Bad Thing. Or maybe not. The proof is in the pudding. (Whatever the hell *that* means...;-))
Yes, that too. Was the soldier good, or evil? He was certainly a turd, but he probably would have been shot for resisting the Nazi's. And Hank's character...did he do the right thing when he let the German go? And possible have him kill more allied soldiers? (himself, in this case)
By 'The closest thing to evil on this planet', I meant the Nazi ideology. People like Hitler+co., and the evil that they propagated. I'm sure that most of the soldiers involved (on both sides) didn't give a damn about ideology. The did what they were told. Be it out of national pride, hatred, because they would be court martialed/hung/shot if they didn't. Whatever. But not because they were good people or bad people. Which is a point I think Speilberg makes fairly well. Not just a rehash of evil vs. good. I think most people would agree that we were 'the good guys' in WWII, even though we (as individuals) did some pretty rotten stuff. As far as the story about your grandfather, yes that's an interesting story. It probably won't ever be movie-cized though...not too many people could relate to it. Many more people know people who's grandfather died in the war, or who's grandfather owes his life to someone else because of what happened in the war. And no, I'd never suggest that your grandfather was/is the closest thing to pure evil on this planet. Unless his name was A. Hitler...
The only thing I *didn't* like about 2001 was the long, boring sequence in the monolith itself...you know, the one that looked kinda like the beginning of a Dr. Who episode, with the 'fancy hi-tech' graphics flying past. But on second thought, I think it was much, much longer in the director's cut version...so it serves me right.
>>Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.
>Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.
I hardly think a movie that shows people getting bloodily shot, abused, raped, murdered, tortured, and de-humanized is a feel good movie. Yes, they both ended on a positive note. SL showing all the people who managed to survive because of Schindler, SPR shows 'private ryan' remembring the guy that saved is butt. Whether or not ending on a positive not is a good or bad thing is an artistic interpretation.
Also: Patriotic idiots? Yeah, that's me. Guilty as charged. But SPR also shows that the govt/military does stupid brainless stuff. Like saving the last surviving son of a family by endangering the lives of a dozen or so good soldiers. Real stupid and brainless, that.
Uneducated sophomores? I don't quite follow that one.
Correction: Those were damn fine amusement park rides.
Why does a movie have to be 'artsy' to be considered good? What's wrong with the Good vs. Evil theme? The purpose here is *entertainment*. Also, someone (not sure if it was you), scoffed at Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's list b/c they are 'good vs. evil' movies.
1) They're **Nazi's** fer cryin out loud! That's as close to pure evil as we get on this planet. 2) As I recall, there were some sympathetic/non-evil Germans/Nazi's in both of those movies. Remember in SPR the scene where they take out the sniper's nest out in the middle of nowhere? 'The good guys' want to shoot the poor, unwitting German soldier who really doesn't want to be a part of Nazi-ism in the first place? Where's the black+white, good-vs-evil plot there? Speilberg did a damn fine job with both movies, IMESHO.
Some people just find it too easy to critisize them because they were popular, and therefore appeal to the mindless masses, and so they must suck.
Well, personally, I find homosexuality in general pretty yucky. I think most of America agrees with me, and would rather not hear about/watch it. I think it's wrong that gay people are discriminated against sometimes, but hey, dems da breaks, as they say. I don't want to see gay people on television. If someone I have contact with is gay, I just don't want to know. I don't care. If they tell me, I always wish they hadn't. Not because I hate them, I just think it's yucky. Not that I'm saying they should feel they have to hide it, but many gay people seem to *like* to broadcast their sexual orientation.
"exploding bridge consoles...does Starfleet build them with pyrotechnics already installed? They're just computers for chrissakes..why is anything combustable in them?"
Obviously you've never had a power supply or monitor go *really* bad on you...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
And the number one band for /.ers - 'Firzt Pozt, D00dz!'
This is a very complicated and scary topic...the potential benefit is only matched by the potential for tragedy. One thing I'm sure of: This is one new technology you *don't* want to jump on as soon as it's available. Wait until the first 'g-e' kids are grown, and see how they work out first, then consider your options.
-RN
Why is it that people *love* to use the 'starving children' approach when they go after the space program? Why is it that I never hear that argument when we're talking, say, what to do with 800 billion extra dollors? Starving children? Fuck 'em...we want our tax cut! Let's see: 800 billion dollors, divided by 11 million kids...we could get them each a 'Happy Meal' (tm) and a vitamin once a day for the next forty years with 800 billion dollors.
As for b), yeah that sucks...but is it NASA's fault?? No. They are not allowed to patent products, according to some obscure government regulation. Too bad. They could have paid for their own funding several times over if they could...and have plenty left over for Happy Meals.
Oh yeah...
-RN
What the government needs to protect itself against a 'cyberterrorist' attack is exactly the same thing as what a major corporation needs. The government needs well-trained security experts to make sure the networks are secure. A government is no different from a high-profile corporation in this sense. There is no law which congress can pass and enforce that will prevent people from attacking government computers. And why should the government try? If some kid cracks a government web site or computer, his primary goal is going to be to say to the world 'I did it! Look at me!'. Think of it as a free security audit. Patch the hole and let the kid try again.
What the government needs to protect itself against a 'cyberterrorist' attack is exactly the same thing as what a major corporation needs. The government needs well-trained security experts to make sure the networks are secure. A government is no different from a high-profile corporation in this sense. There is no law which congress can pass and enforce that will prevent people from attacking government computers. And why should the government try? If some kid cracks a government web site or computer, his primary goal is going to be to say to the world 'I did it! Look at me!'. Think of it as a free security audit. Patch the hole and let the kid try again.
-RN
it was IDIOT proof. Just nuke proof.
That's from english->portugese->english
I may be talking out of an unnamed oriface here, but the fifth amendment doesn't apply if you're asked to provide information which incriminates someone else...i.e., the person could be required to hand over info which incriminates Mr. Clinton, but not info which incriminates herself. At least, that's how I understand it. Plus I think that the case you are talking about was a grand jury investigation, which has somewhat different structure than a regular court.
Giving broad wire-tapping capabilities to the FBI, or to anyone else for that matter, doesn't help society at all! The ability to listen to or observe anyone easily, and without accountability or permission is an extremely powerful tool. And like all tools, wiretapping has a potential for abuse. Giving the FBI the ability to tap digital lines is not a problem at all. It's the power to do so without permission, at random if they so choose that is the problem. As another poster pointed out, what happens when the FBI starts tapping people just because they disagree with the government? 'We could stop another Waco, or another Federal Building bombing' they'll say. The people they will be tapping is anyone who disagrees with the government. Like everyone on this thread. You get put on 'the list'. Every now and then, an FBI agent listens in on your private converstaions. Scans your e-mails. Gathering dirt on your oh-so-innocent self. Remember those mp3's you downloaded last week? Look at a couple of nudie pics maybe? Download some warez? Schedule lunch with an old flame? Your gay lover? Call up an old friend and remeneisce about your pot-smoking, drug taking college days? All in your record. Everyone breaks the law. Even if you don't, there are some things that you want private. Things that you don't want 'accidentally' leaked to the press, your wife, your boss, if you get 'out of hand'.
No, I'm not saying the FBI does this. I'm not saying they would even want to do this. But if the power is there, without any safeguards, it can be used against you. That's why the police are required to get a warrant for a wiretap. They must have a warrant to enter your home, which describes exactly what they are searching for. Sure, they might catch a few more criminals that way, but at the cost of trampling everyone else's rights. Not worth it.
Let's see...
'Number of the Beast' comes to mind.
So does the one where the dirty old man gets his brain stuck in the body of his gorgeous (dead) secretary, and proceeds to get all emotional and weepy. Can't remember the title of that one.
Those both sucked. Hard. In My Ever So Humble Opinion anyway.
I loved most of Heinlein's other books, but those two were just terrible.
From a babelfish translation:
" In number 36 of 9.9.1999 (page 9919) Linux under the document reference 399 36 517,6 in the category software is listed."
Well, I think the significance of this is pretty obvious...
On the first line, we start with 36. 3+6 is nine, and 9*4 is 36. Then you have 2 nines, followed by a 1, and 3 more nines. That makes 5 nines...1 less than 4 nines! The second line is even more interesting. The first digit is '3' while the last is '6'...36 again! With another 36 in the middle! There are a total of 10 nines in the whole thing, and 1+0=1. The number of beginnings, unity, the antichrist, and cream cheese. Add all the digits in both lines, and you get 132. 1+3+2=6, which when you turn it upside-down looks kind of like a nine. You know what this means, don't you??!
Absolutely nothing.
I trust Redhat more than any other company I've dealt with (though I must admit I've only dealt with them in a very small way).
I don't follow your logic that IPO==bad management. Is it wrong for them to make money off of Linux? You say much of your career is based on Redhat. So you make a living partly with their products, right? For which you've paid them, what? Probably not much, directly. But by bringing people to use Redhat Linux, you've probably benefitted Redhat and Linux. Much the same way that Redhat benefits the Linux community in part by bringing people to linux. What's the problem.
As for the Raster issue, it's usually considered in bad taste to comment on a former employee. What if Bob Young *doesn't* wish Raster well? Best not to say anything either way. Some confirmation of Radhat's plans in the GUI area would be nice, but if Raster no longer works for Redhat, he isn't exactly qualified to be a spokesman for their future plans. Redhat may still be considering it's options in that area.
As for your CD's, I don't see why you need permission from Redhat to distribute the software. As it says in the interview...'emil's Nifty-neato-keen Linux Distrib - derived from Redhat Linux'. Maybe I don't fully understand the situation though.
I got M2 today. To bad I didn't get that one. Most of the ones I *did* get seemed fair, but this one doesn't. One recommendation - some ability to easily see the context when being an M2 would be nice... i.e. being able to go up and down the message tree. I didn't see any easy way to do that.
I disagree. I think it's a great thing that Redhat can make money off of linux. As long as they *don't* go the proprietary route. Having a corporation that is based solely on linux goes a *long* way toward improving linux credibility. On the other hand, if they *do* go proprietary (like a closed source installer (which they aren't doing)) then screw 'em.
>I don't mind AC's making (apparently outlandish) assertions like this, but a LITTLE detail to back it up would make it sound less like a troll, and more like a biped.
Hey!
Trolls are bipeds too!
Dammit.
I guess I'll just have to disagree with you there. I liked both SPR, and SL...have yet to see EotS. They weren't as deep as Kubrick by any stretch, and they weren't meant to be as cerebral. But I still think they are good movies. Speilberg can't touch Kubrick at what Kubrick does best. But Kubrick can't top Speilberg at his thing. And neither of them has really tried. Until now. This could be a Bad Thing. Or maybe not. The proof is in the pudding. (Whatever the hell *that* means... ;-))
I think he made the best of a bad situation.
By 'The closest thing to evil on this planet', I meant the Nazi ideology. People like Hitler+co., and the evil that they propagated. I'm sure that most of the soldiers involved (on both sides) didn't give a damn about ideology. The did what they were told. Be it out of national pride, hatred, because they would be court martialed/hung/shot if they didn't. Whatever. But not because they were good people or bad people. Which is a point I think Speilberg makes fairly well. Not just a rehash of evil vs. good. I think most people would agree that we were 'the good guys' in WWII, even though we (as individuals) did some pretty rotten stuff. As far as the story about your grandfather, yes that's an interesting story. It probably won't ever be movie-cized though...not too many people could relate to it. Many more people know people who's grandfather died in the war, or who's grandfather owes his life to someone else because of what happened in the war. And no, I'd never suggest that your grandfather was/is the closest thing to pure evil on this planet. Unless his name was A. Hitler...
The only thing I *didn't* like about 2001 was the long, boring sequence in the monolith itself...you know, the one that looked kinda like the beginning of a Dr. Who episode, with the 'fancy hi-tech' graphics flying past. But on second thought, I think it was much, much longer in the director's cut version...so it serves me right.
>>Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies.
>Actually those are feel good movies. SPR feels good to american patroism idiots, and SL feels good to uneducated sophomores.
I hardly think a movie that shows people getting bloodily shot, abused, raped, murdered, tortured, and de-humanized is a feel good movie. Yes, they both ended on a positive note. SL showing all the people who managed to survive because of Schindler, SPR shows 'private ryan' remembring the guy that saved is butt. Whether or not ending on a positive not is a good or bad thing is an artistic interpretation.
Also: Patriotic idiots? Yeah, that's me. Guilty as charged. But SPR also shows that the govt/military does stupid brainless stuff. Like saving the last surviving son of a family by endangering the lives of a dozen or so good soldiers. Real stupid and brainless, that.
Uneducated sophomores? I don't quite follow that one.
>>Raiders of the Lost Ark
>>Jaws
>Those were amusement park rides
Correction: Those were damn fine amusement park rides.
Why does a movie have to be 'artsy' to be considered good? What's wrong with the Good vs. Evil theme? The purpose here is *entertainment*. Also, someone (not sure if it was you), scoffed at Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's list b/c they are 'good vs. evil' movies.
1) They're **Nazi's** fer cryin out loud! That's as close to pure evil as we get on this planet.
2) As I recall, there were some sympathetic/non-evil Germans/Nazi's in both of those movies. Remember in SPR the scene where they take out the sniper's nest out in the middle of nowhere? 'The good guys' want to shoot the poor, unwitting German soldier who really doesn't want to be a part of Nazi-ism in the first place? Where's the black+white, good-vs-evil plot there? Speilberg did a damn fine job with both movies, IMESHO.
Some people just find it too easy to critisize them because they were popular, and therefore appeal to the mindless masses, and so they must suck.
Oh fuck...and I promised myself 'No rants today'.
Well, personally, I find homosexuality in general pretty yucky. I think most of America agrees with me, and would rather not hear about/watch it. I think it's wrong that gay people are discriminated against sometimes, but hey, dems da breaks, as they say. I don't want to see gay people on television. If someone I have contact with is gay, I just don't want to know. I don't care. If they tell me, I always wish they hadn't. Not because I hate them, I just think it's yucky. Not that I'm saying they should feel they have to hide it, but many gay people seem to *like* to broadcast their sexual orientation.
I saw an ad on nick for 'spongeboy squarepants' or something like that...I thought they were kidding...they weren't. I unplugged the television.
"exploding bridge consoles...does Starfleet build them with pyrotechnics already installed? They're just computers for chrissakes..why is anything combustable in them?"
;-)
Obviously you've never had a power supply or monitor go *really* bad on you...
*does a little dance*