But they cut all the scenes where a late middle aged english accented actor in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches lectures about things like how "C" is always a hard "K" sound in Quenya. There's plenty of that to get a fourth movie. Then they can try filming some of Professor Tolkien's other works, such as "Leaf by Niggle", before they have to draw on the parts Christopher finished out.
There's some strong Christian symbolism running through LOTR, with Frodo's suffering, for example being "Christlike" suffering. In this vein, you can compare Isildur to Adam, who falls to the temptation (of the ring instead of the apple), and whose heirs all pay the price. That makes Aragorn Christ-like in resisting that temptation (at least for a time).
So changing Farimir actually brings out that symbolism better. After all what's the point of an irresistable temptation that even secondary characters such as Faramir and Bombadil resist? Tolkien had some room to explore why those two didn't react to the ring's lure in the books, but fitting it into a film for either case would be a weighty task indeed.
Plus there's still Faramir's other role, as the better of two sons unjustly rejected by the father. That's a pretty good plotline right there.
Hunting DLLs is actually rather fun and easy (at least in 98). It's also a good way to improve system stability and shave seconds off of boot time. Open Explorer, Use the find command (under tools) at root (usually C:), with "include subfolders" checked, and patternmatch for *.dll. Once you find them, make sure the newest version of each one is in your system folder, and then delete older multiple versions. (Better just send them to recycle and wait a bit just in case, although I've never run across a case of two unrelated DLLs with the exact same name doing this).
Ive seen this fix systems that pause for one or two minutes at boot and then continue, and the first time I tried it on one of my machines I got back 120 Mb. (But I'd been installing a lot of test freeware - YMMV). Ohhh! did you mean manually as "hunt and peck", look in each folder and take notes?
SCO (or some element of it) would have to see a possible advantage worth some level of guarenteed loss. The tactic has a clear disadvantage, in that many investors are likely to move away or stay away from a company that seems to be making lots of enemies, even if they think that company is ethically right. So, it's not a break even/win choice for SCO, it has a predictable negative outcome (their stock, already dropping, _will_ take another hit) and some very speculative positive outcomes that might or might not have a chance of offsetting it (a judge might let them delay responding to some motions, the delay might be stretchable long enough to affect not just one, but two more quarterly earnings reports, the positive effect of the delay, coupled with mre press releases, might be big enough to offset the guarenteed negatives, or even drive the price of the stock back up, etc).
I'd be more inclined to agree fully with you, if it were just a hypothetical risk of the attack being traced back to them, where argueably they probably would think they were too clever to get caught. That seems to be what you're addressing in the first full paragraph of your post, and if I'm not reading more into it than you meant, I agree completely with that point.
I doubt that they can hire someone who could cover his tracks all that well without paying a lot more than a few hundred bucks. A real pro from Dover seems likely to realize that it's a hyper-unstable situation, and want a lot more, but if they pay him that lot more, it would be harder to hide the paper trail. Now if they had someone who was already involved for other reasons, to the point where the actual script distributer was afraid of being one of the people the SEC might indict anyway, I'll grant you the possibility they might evaluate the risks differently. Someone already hoping to evade 8 to 10 might figure risking tacking on another 2 wasn't a big deal.
If Darl is already 100% certain SCO will crater before he gets in 4 profitable quarters AND pretty sure the hacking won't get traced back to him, AND is getting paid 10 million by Microsoft specificly to throw FUD at open source, AND has a plan to get away to some place without extradition despite IBM pushing for it, or Darl has some really complicated plan that means losing that bonus was something he allowed for all along AND this plan hasn't derailed yet, all sorts of otherwise unlikely things might follow. (And the same goes if someone else has that really complicated plan, and is successfully using Darl and at least some other CO execs)
It's just that there's a log chain of such IFs required. Some of them are possibly reasonable, or at least not too far fetched, but they get incresingly unlikely if they all form long chains instead of resolving independently. It's more than reasonable, it's a near certainty that some people at SCO could have dug up a copy of an MS scripting host based program, and have set some protections aside, if they had a motive to do so. It's much less reasonable that they had that motive, if the motive requires that there be a Moriarty level mastermind somewhere behind this mess.
"Too bad the patrons of both, who affect the reputation of the site more than anything the site could ever do, don't have the same maturity level."
Why go AC on this? I'd modify that to say SOME of the patrons, but if I did, I sure wouldn't hesitate to put a mere nym on it. Both sites have set an example worthy of emulation, not just by media outlets, but by visitors or patrons.
It's easy to assume SCO is lieing, just because they have previously raised FUD to a not so fine art. However, in this case, it makes sense to assume they are telling the truth (at least in large part).
Are there black hats who would conduct such an attack in a misguided defense of open source? 100% yes.
Would SCO fake such an attack? Maybe, if their goal is really to discredit open source at any cost. Reporting such an attack won't make their stock go back up. If anything, it will drop futher. Will it influence a judge? I won't say it's impossible, but it's unlikely at best. Will it help Darl hold on long enough to get 4 profitable quarters? It's likelyest to work against that rather than for it.
In the absence of clear and unassailable proof that someone connected to SCO is prepared to lose millions, risk spending the rest of their lives in prison, and probably end up having their family name join the ranks of names that have become common words for really bad things (tm), as have Lynch and Gerrymander, all just to harm the reputation of OSS, the only sensible assumption is the DDOS originated outside SCO.
Or the attack didn't penetrate, but they selectively took some subsystems down in case there was something else, such as a worm, and not just a DDOS involved. This attack apparently peaked after normal working hours, so shutting down some services or subnets at the first indication of an attack, before it has been analyzed in any depth, might be a relatively low cost defense option, just so the sys-admins can still communicate for incident logging and such.
Of course, this would imply that, for some reason, SCO has more concern about serious attacks from above script-kiddee level, multi-pronged attacks, and attacks whose goal is to really screw up the company, than most businesses do. I wonder if they have real reason to be concerned or are just being institutionally paranoid?
Well, actually, I believe that bushmen is one of those words that don't always appear in a derogatory context, and are often used in a way that doesn't insult anyone involved, but that it's quite possible to use it as a very serious insult.
I'm not saying you used it that way, either. I don't think the first poster to use it meant it as an insult, so much as a shorthand for a more complex idea, but I'm sure some people read it as one.
For example, Indonesia counts as a third world or developing nation. I suspect that most indonesians would be insulted to be called bushmen, and most African bushmen would be equally insulted to be compared to the Indonesians. Many American blacks would be insulted by a remark that the third world countries consisted of bushmen, not because some don't, at least in part, but because being a developing nation is hardly confined to ones with a large black population.
I don't think the African bushmen are enjoying all the advantages of industrialization in South Africa, or even the lesser amount in Zimbabwe, and as you point out, there are plenty of other examples such as India and Pakistan that are in the same pickle. I do think that efforts to provide such things as internet access to these populations depends on what their sovereign government allows or cooperates with more than any other factor.
That's one of the reasons I originally mentioned Australia, by the way. South Africa (and the majority of African nations) would tell any international group wanting to facilitate net access for bushmen that they would have to put all monies in a government account, talk to the bushmen's representitives only through the government, and do absolutely everything the government's way. There would end up being no international progam, just an international grant to a national program. That opinion is based on how they have dealt with such things in the UN in the recent past.
So when someone posts about international programs assisting bushmen, I'm pointing out that if we take him litterally, instead of figuratively, (and in the process treating his use of "bushmen" as a likely insult), he's effectively talking about only the Australian bushmen. The Australian legal system allows an international organization to contract directly with bushmen or anyone else, to keep their funds in an offshore bank rather than a government account, and other such open practices.
As I understood it, they offered to fly him back to NZ, using the equivalent of military space available air, at their cost. That's not free to them, but at worst is also only 50$ or so additional fuel on a C-130. I wouldn't have objected if they billed him.
The offer to ship his plane back was at his own expense only. Best estimates for the expense are in the 50,000$ range. It's proffered without such alternatives as letting him pay to have fuel and additional food and such shipped in, so he can wait long enough to fly out himself when the fuel arrives and replenish the base's stocks in the process.
Again, I wouldn't object if they allowed this only if he can pay the costs to ship both fuel and replacement foodstuffs and such to cover the cost of his extra stay. If he's too poor to incur those costs, send him home at minimal expense and establish a lein against the plane to recoup all legitmate costs. (Hint, they are still low enough that the original owner will get most of the money that would result from selling the plane). It's not the law's job to help him keep his plane if he's too poor to afford to without donations.
The base administration could also decide, based on his conduct on base, that he would be a disruption or safety risk, and that's a legitimate way they could justify flying him home as quickly as reasonable, and not allowing other options.
The base policy appears to be to place difficult and expensive requirements in this pilot's path solely by refusing to allow the less onerous options. After all, they can't stop him from ordering fuel on his own except by not allowing him to use a radiophone for that purpose. They have to deliberately specify that he take the first flight out, rather than stay longer to get fuel in - rather than saying "Ok, you stay in the fuel shed, you pay your costs, you leave when the gas gets here."
The same goes for lots of other scenarios. I.e' if the base doesn't have the required grade fuel on hand, or would be dipping below their established safety margins, of course they have the right to refuse to supply him. On the other hand, that doesnt extend to a right to say "Yes we could sell him 400 liters and stll be well above the regulation safety margin, but we don't want to, BECAUSE that's letting him off too easy and he might not learn his lesson, OR he might not be a sufficent example to others.". Worse yet would be thinking that extends to a right to say "And we can't let him buy it elsewhere either, because that would also be letting him off too easy." There's no way to judge what might be a sufficient example for a completely hypothetical group of other tourist wanna-bes that may not exist.
Even if he does leave, he can refuse to allow them to treat the plane as salvage, and can pay for a trip to recover it far more cheaply than shipping it off, unless they are prepared to refuse him readmission if he's standing at the gate with 400 liters of fuel he brought in himself, trying to recover his own property. He's probably reluctant to risk it, for fear they will charge him a 1,000$ daily "hanger storage fee" or something, or just because of the old adage "Posession is 9/10ths of the law.". If people were announcing their intent to make an example of me, I'd be reluctant to trust them with my property too.
Still, that's why the base authorities don't really have the option to forclose on alternative means of recovering the plane. If they insist on it, he gets a lawyer, sues the US government for "taking without just compensation", and claims the plane's loss with his insuror. Lloyds of London (or whomever) then sues the government seperately for "Fraudulenty Compelling Salvage of an Otherwise Worthy Craft" (Or whatever it's called when it's planes not ships) and the next time he shows up at the gate, it's at US taxpayer expense, with two federal marshalls at his side, and the government has wasted a quarter of a million or so in taxpayer funds trying to stretch the hell out of the law to teach this guy and (speculated but not
Except he evidently didn't make those demands you are citing. A lot of that is the speculation of slashdotters rather than the facts, or even the speculations of the original articles.
I'm glad you wrote your second paragraph, as that may be closer to the truth. One of the articles used the phrase "give him fuel", and some people have taken that uncritically, but the rest of the facts suggest he has been willing to pay for many or all of his costs.
Look, analogies are often tricky things, but I'm going to try one here. Imagine someone's car runs out of gas near your home, and they knock on the door. Do you have to let them use the phone? No. But lets further assume you do. They start to call AAA to find a gas station that will deliver. You interupt them to inform them that they will have to call your cousine Ernie instead, and he will have to tow the car, and will charge 1,000 dollars for the tow. Are you acting charitibly or are you trying to grab a profit from this guy's misfortune?
The base isn't trying to make a financial profit , as it really costs a lot to have a plane shipped off the continent, but they appear to be trying to "profit", by using this pilot to discourage others from risking the penalties they are imposing.
This pilot is apparently trying to avoid paying 50,000$ or so to have his plane shipped back, but is also apparently willing to pay the approximately 33$ a gallon it takes to get fuel shipped in. Possibly there's some genuine dispute over him staying longer to get the plane out cheaper, or paying for his upkeep during the time, but that's not clear from the articles. What seems to be shown is that the base is deliberately refusing to allow him to use a cheaper solution in favor of requiring him to either abandon the plane or pay for the more expensive one.
They have offered him safe return of his plane, but only if he ships it at his expense, by the method they choose. You say they are not required to do more. I say that what we would regard as reprehensible if done by a private person claiming to be charitable does not stop being reprehensible just because it is done for a non-profit cause.
The 1 in 3 statistic was reported for a group of 18 to 25 year olds who chose racing bikes in a certain class. I wouldn't be surprised if it's accurate, assuming that they bought very high velocity bikes as their first cycle and took them out without much, if any practice with more typical road bikes.
I'd want a system where I coud easily pick and choose what gets displayed and how. Maybe start with just tach and speed (in digital of course), with a small font size.
Patronage systems tend to go with monarchy. The patrons of the Renaissance were overwhelmingly dukes, lords, popes and archbishops. A modern version of patronage would need to involve the middle class and not just a few at the top, or it would become one of the ways those few would move towards becoming a hereditary nobility. This is equally a threat whether the 'elite' are direct patrons of the arts or politicians extending patronage with taxpayer money.
Performance as a source also sounds good at first, but has some drawbacks. First, it tends to reward the physically attractive but not necessarily talented musicians.
Some art forms also don't lend themselves to live performance - for example there were many electronic compositions from the 70's and 80s where the artists who wrote them were generally unable to perform them live with the synthesizer technology of that time. Larry Fast, for example did synthesized violin work with a very fragile, hand built and massive machine containing cued tape loops of every possible violin note. Rick Wakeman sometimes used to leave 80% or more of his gear behind when touring with Yes.
No less an artist than Beethoven was infamous for complaining that the orchestras of his time simply could not perform his works to his standards. Scriabin wanted massive light shows in time with his music, a dream that died unrealized. I don't know of modern artists facing equal limitations, but it at least seems possible there are some, and I for one have no idea how we could identify them, yet going to a system that rewards live performance more, without knowing more about them, sounds risky for that reason.
There's no reason to think photons have experiences, period. But if we do, a photon experiences no time in its transit through space, so nomally even a photon that could experience something wouldn't get any time to experience it in. In some exotic environments, such as a Bose Einstein condensate, a photon might actually be existing "for a time" from its (supposedly non-existant) point of view. So if a photon can experience something after all...
Oh no, we're waking them up! What happens when they catch on?
Yes, lets charge 1,000% for all emergency services. Heck, if he pays to bring in the fuel, food, and other costs expended on him, the base only breaks even. Lets go for a profit that would make SCOs potential winnage look small. You know what? Dune''s economic model sucked. That's why the fremen were already sitting on the most valuable stuff in the universe and couldn't figure out that they could hire mercenaries instead of fighting for it themselves.
He's probably actually good for something, or he wouldn't have racked up those other flights on his record without dieing before this. He also likely has enough money to fix at least some of the problems he's actually caused, probably all of them so far. If nothing else, he ought to be able to sell the book rights to this for enough to pay his costs plus a tidy profit. Still, he doesn't sound like a team player offhand and it wouldn't surprise me if he's in this pickle because his personality abraded someone's at the base. There's a reason why the US military gives a ribbon for wintering over in Antartica, with clusters if you do it more than once. (By the way, the ribbon starts pale, icy blue at the ends, and gets whiter and whiter with each band until it's a perfect snow color in the middle.).
There's an optimum solution to the costs involved. The base either has the amount of fuel they estimate is a safe emergency reserve, or they are currently above that (I really doubt they are below, or that they don't have a formal policy on that point).
If they are going to have problems with some missions if they sell him the fuel, that is a real cost that can be documented, but they aren't relieved from seeking a solution that doesn't compromise their mission. If they would have to run a safety risk, over a mere 400 liters, well it's summer locally, so there is likely time to bring in some more fuel, quite possibly by less expensive means than a whole charter flight for just 400 liters.
If this pilot wants to stay two extra weeks or a month, to get the required fuel in more cheaply, then he can presumably pay for the additional room and board and other expenses.
Admittedly, the base could have a mission schedule that is so packed, they're barely keeping ahead with all the fuel reserves they can fly in, and it might take them months to build up an additional reserve, by which time it's winter locally. On the other hand, there's no indication this is so, and if it is likely, then it's equally likely that they are barely keeping ahead on food, and rescuing this guy is going to leave them turning cannibal this winter, or they are barely keeping ahead on some scientific supply, and the full research program is likely to be canceled with the slightest disruption of their schedule, till at least next year anyway.
If this pilot isn't actually going to draw down their reserves below the safety margin, he's also not responsible for some other idiot flying in at some other time when reserves are lower. Selling him fuel if the reserve is high also doesn't obligate the base to sell fuel to idiots number 2->N if the reserve isn't when they pop in. For that matter, any such case is unlikely to be identical to this one, and any decision will have to include differences, so there's really not a lot of precedent setting going on here.
He probably does want to attempt to fly the plane out. Either that's actually feasable or it isn't. Given that the plane made it in, despite an unforseen wind problem, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that the risk is significant. The Federal Aviation Administration's opinion there counts for a lot more than the base's administration's opinion. The pilot could be required by base admin. to wait for a favorable weather report, for example, and pay the extra boarding costs, but such limitations have to be reasonable, or the administrator is overstepping his expertese.
Regarding your point 3. There is no legal authority to impose such penalties here, whether those penalties might deter some other fool or not. Charging him 30 or 50$ a meal might be reasonable if it costs that much to ship extra food by cheapest feasable route. Charging him 1,000$ a meal just to make him discouraged is not.
Consider, for all the speculation about the base's fuel reserves or the cost of flying in fuel, the one thing the authorities have actually indicated is entirely related to your point #3 and none of the others. They haven't said that they face a problem maintaining a safety reserve, or keeping to a research schedule if they sell him fuel, just that they want to discourage "tourism".
Re: point 4, letting him make his own arrangements if he wants to get his plane out is probably the best solution, but as you point out, they can't do this and not give in on point #2. The authorities don't appear to be offering any options under point #4 except letting him ship the plane out on their chosen carrier at his expense. He evidently thinks there are cheaper ways to fix the problem that are still reasonably safe. The only reason the government agency seems to give for there NOT being cheaper ways that are still reasonably safe is that they don't want the idiot to get off too cheaply or he might try it again. Unless the base wants to cite a safety or cost re
"If they don't want to give him an easy way out by selling fuel, why should they?"
Because they don't have other options that work. 1. They can force him by court order to pay for his lodging and services until he's out of money, then get another court order to make the plane legally theirs and continue the process. That's basically legalized piracy, by forcing him by barratry to abandon the item as salvage. If he has the sense to hire a lawyer it will cost far more in legal fees to attempt it than any losses they have experienced, especially if one of the alternatives is to sell him the gas at a fair markup.
The resulting publicity will eventually wreck the scientific community's chances of getting government grants once some aspiring politician gets ahold of it. 2. They can throw him out on the ice to freeze. Believe it or not, that would result in multiple charges of first degree murder. There is no law that says "I rescued you, now your life is mine to dispose of as I see fit", however much some people would like for there to be. 3. They can find some excuse to arrest him, thus giving them the legal authority to force him on a plane out of Antartica, this would leave them with his plane sitting there, which is a taking without due compensation unless they either pay him for it or use something like the RICO act to claim it was part of a felony siezure, so they would have to arrest him for a felony and not a mere misdemeanor. What felony has he comitted? Without a felony charge, he has the right to recover his plane, for example by returning with enough fuel to fly it out after they fly him off the continent. Again, there is no law that would let them throw him off Antartica and say never come back. He could return if he chose and could afford to. He could also sue if the government puts additional costs in his way.
Yes, he was irresponsible. He also has enough money to pay for his irresponsible act, unless someone insists on tacking on extra costs to "teach him a lesson", which is an authority they simply don't have. If this goes to court, a judge is likely to take a very dim view of that. Keep thinking the base can somehow force him to either abandon his plane or shift to a more expensive means of recovering it, and when he comes back, he will have a few federal marshals accompanying him, at US taxpayer expense.
The word bushmen, particularly as the original poster used it, is also widely considered to be one of the most offensive terms around. While it might not be as offensive in some other contexts, the implication that all the inhabitants of the developing countries can be characterized as bushmen would offend many people indeed. Your own use of the term in response is not exactly a shining counter-example, as is your electing not to address how your use may correspond to or contrast with that of the first post in this chain despite my asking you about it.
I am sorry I descended to using a term such as "abo". It was a misguided effort to make a point (the more misguided since I thought it was percieved as patronizing, but not that much more offensive than some other terms. It's been a while since I was in Australia, and evidently it's moved up the list).
Since you either have no idea that a comment about the residents of the developing nations being bushmen might give similar offense, or did not bother to read the whole thread before you singled out my post, I thought I might give you an example of how you can, and doubtless will, be interpreted. Regrettably, I'm sure it did more harm than good.
The "Nuke's" reference seems rather straightforward to me. The First poster was writing about how it made no sense to give bushmen assistence in getting connected to the internet instead of building a national infrastructure.
If he meant the African bushmen, then he meant mostly residents of South Africa. South Africa demonstrated that they had the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon over 15 years ago. That surely requires an industrial society. The people he was calling bushmen thus mostly live in a country that already surely has the infrastructure he was advocating. (Whether they are sharing in it on a more local level or not). Given the collapse of apartheid, the legal status of these people is citizens of one of the most industrialized nations of the African continent.
If HE meant the Australian aboriginals, then again, last I looked Australia had an industrial infrastructure.
If he meant other bushmen somewhere, he'll have to specify whom he's fitting into that nomenclature, as I genuinely don't follow his point. If he's characterizing the inhabitants of such "third world" nations as Thailand, Bosnia, or Chile as bushmen, HE's the one to clarify what he means.
Rather than take offense at the way the first poster phrased his question, I chose to answer it as best I could, in particular because, stripped of the more loaded words, it was a genuine rational arguement for a position many hold without being particularly racist, but one with which I don't agree. If you're going to insist on taking offense when I use one of his terms, then why did you not choose to take similar offense with the first poster?
Re: becoming subservient to the US - Do you want to apply to become one big state or six or so medium sized ones? It's your decision, of course, but please consider the ramifications of taking a bragging point away from Texans with our current leadership.
By the way, could you all talk like Paul Hogan for the next 20 years? If you could just preserve your "quaint ethnic dialects" long enough, you would create many new jobs for 'Merican/Australian translators in our courts and public schools. Don't worry, we'll put them in the districts that need 'Merican/Hispanic translators, so no actual education will take place.
On second thought, I live at about 800 meters above sea level. The UN and the seat of US government are both at about 10 to 50 Meters elevation. Please feel free to melt Antartica and flood both coasts of the US.
Oh, those bushmen - The UN doesn't recognize the african "bushmen" as a separate political entity vis-a-vis the current South African government (and the same situation goes for the smaller numbers to the north of SA, i.e. Zimbabwe). Any legislative control or funding from the UN would therefore be funneled through South Africa and other recognized nations.
Debate over whether a country that has developed atomic weapons needs to modernize further before expanding internet access, for all their other problems, seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
The UN _has_ issued non-binding resolutions on the treatment of Au. abo's, ergo making them possibly relevant to the original message.
Reference to the Austrailian aboriginals as bushmen is often considered both archaic and derogatory. Guess what, the same applies to the African ones. I used the term in response to a post where it was used first. If you find it inappropriate for me, might I ask if you found it equally inapproprate from that poster? Tell you what, next time, I will just leap to a conclusion and call the poster a racist a**hole, rather than try to reply with some subtlty, or repect for a legitimate question even if the poster phrased it in a questionable manner. Sound's to me like you're playing "Let's you and him fight".
By the way, your last sentence is exactly what I was strongly implying. Nice to see it whizzed right by you. (And I was worried about maybe making it too blunt and sounding like I was preaching).
Slashdot Mirror
But they cut all the scenes where a late middle aged english accented actor in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches lectures about things like how "C" is always a hard "K" sound in Quenya. There's plenty of that to get a fourth movie. Then they can try filming some of Professor Tolkien's other works, such as "Leaf by Niggle", before they have to draw on the parts Christopher finished out.
They could do book "seven" still. You know, the one that's all about family trees and how to pronounce elvish. 108 pages of appendices - Sheesh!
There's some strong Christian symbolism running through LOTR, with Frodo's suffering, for example being "Christlike" suffering. In this vein, you can compare Isildur to Adam, who falls to the temptation (of the ring instead of the apple), and whose heirs all pay the price. That makes Aragorn Christ-like in resisting that temptation (at least for a time).
So changing Farimir actually brings out that symbolism better. After all what's the point of an irresistable temptation that even secondary characters such as Faramir and Bombadil resist? Tolkien had some room to explore why those two didn't react to the ring's lure in the books, but fitting it into a film for either case would be a weighty task indeed.
Plus there's still Faramir's other role, as the better of two sons unjustly rejected by the father. That's a pretty good plotline right there.
Hunting DLLs is actually rather fun and easy (at least in 98). It's also a good way to improve system stability and shave seconds off of boot time. Open Explorer, Use the find command (under tools) at root (usually C:), with "include subfolders" checked, and patternmatch for *.dll. Once you find them, make sure the newest version of each one is in your system folder, and then delete older multiple versions. (Better just send them to recycle and wait a bit just in case, although I've never run across a case of two unrelated DLLs with the exact same name doing this).
Ive seen this fix systems that pause for one or two minutes at boot and then continue, and the first time I tried it on one of my machines I got back 120 Mb. (But I'd been installing a lot of test freeware - YMMV). Ohhh! did you mean manually as "hunt and peck", look in each folder and take notes?
SCO (or some element of it) would have to see a possible advantage worth some level of guarenteed loss. The tactic has a clear disadvantage, in that many investors are likely to move away or stay away from a company that seems to be making lots of enemies, even if they think that company is ethically right. So, it's not a break even/win choice for SCO, it has a predictable negative outcome (their stock, already dropping, _will_ take another hit) and some very speculative positive outcomes that might or might not have a chance of offsetting it (a judge might let them delay responding to some motions, the delay might be stretchable long enough to affect not just one, but two more quarterly earnings reports, the positive effect of the delay, coupled with mre press releases, might be big enough to offset the guarenteed negatives, or even drive the price of the stock back up, etc).
I'd be more inclined to agree fully with you, if it were just a hypothetical risk of the attack being traced back to them, where argueably they probably would think they were too clever to get caught. That seems to be what you're addressing in the first full paragraph of your post, and if I'm not reading more into it than you meant, I agree completely with that point.
I doubt that they can hire someone who could cover his tracks all that well without paying a lot more than a few hundred bucks. A real pro from Dover seems likely to realize that it's a hyper-unstable situation, and want a lot more, but if they pay him that lot more, it would be harder to hide the paper trail. Now if they had someone who was already involved for other reasons, to the point where the actual script distributer was afraid of being one of the people the SEC might indict anyway, I'll grant you the possibility they might evaluate the risks differently. Someone already hoping to evade 8 to 10 might figure risking tacking on another 2 wasn't a big deal.
If Darl is already 100% certain SCO will crater before he gets in 4 profitable quarters AND pretty sure the hacking won't get traced back to him, AND is getting paid 10 million by Microsoft specificly to throw FUD at open source, AND has a plan to get away to some place without extradition despite IBM pushing for it, or Darl has some really complicated plan that means losing that bonus was something he allowed for all along AND this plan hasn't derailed yet, all sorts of otherwise unlikely things might follow. (And the same goes if someone else has that really complicated plan, and is successfully using Darl and at least some other CO execs)
It's just that there's a log chain of such IFs required. Some of them are possibly reasonable, or at least not too far fetched, but they get incresingly unlikely if they all form long chains instead of resolving independently. It's more than reasonable, it's a near certainty that some people at SCO could have dug up a copy of an MS scripting host based program, and have set some protections aside, if they had a motive to do so. It's much less reasonable that they had that motive, if the motive requires that there be a Moriarty level mastermind somewhere behind this mess.
"Too bad the patrons of both, who affect the reputation of the site more than anything the site could ever do, don't have the same maturity level."
Why go AC on this? I'd modify that to say SOME of the patrons, but if I did, I sure wouldn't hesitate to put a mere nym on it. Both sites have set an example worthy of emulation, not just by media outlets, but by visitors or patrons.
It's easy to assume SCO is lieing, just because they have previously raised FUD to a not so fine art. However, in this case, it makes sense to assume they are telling the truth (at least in large part).
Are there black hats who would conduct such an attack in a misguided defense of open source? 100% yes.
Would SCO fake such an attack? Maybe, if their goal is really to discredit open source at any cost. Reporting such an attack won't make their stock go back up. If anything, it will drop futher. Will it influence a judge? I won't say it's impossible, but it's unlikely at best. Will it help Darl hold on long enough to get 4 profitable quarters? It's likelyest to work against that rather than for it.
In the absence of clear and unassailable proof that someone connected to SCO is prepared to lose millions, risk spending the rest of their lives in prison, and probably end up having their family name join the ranks of names that have become common words for really bad things (tm), as have Lynch and Gerrymander, all just to harm the reputation of OSS, the only sensible assumption is the DDOS originated outside SCO.
Or the attack didn't penetrate, but they selectively took some subsystems down in case there was something else, such as a worm, and not just a DDOS involved. This attack apparently peaked after normal working hours, so shutting down some services or subnets at the first indication of an attack, before it has been analyzed in any depth, might be a relatively low cost defense option, just so the sys-admins can still communicate for incident logging and such.
Of course, this would imply that, for some reason, SCO has more concern about serious attacks from above script-kiddee level, multi-pronged attacks, and attacks whose goal is to really screw up the company, than most businesses do. I wonder if they have real reason to be concerned or are just being institutionally paranoid?
Well, actually, I believe that bushmen is one of those words that don't always appear in a derogatory context, and are often used in a way that doesn't insult anyone involved, but that it's quite possible to use it as a very serious insult.
I'm not saying you used it that way, either. I don't think the first poster to use it meant it as an insult, so much as a shorthand for a more complex idea, but I'm sure some people read it as one.
For example, Indonesia counts as a third world or developing nation. I suspect that most indonesians would be insulted to be called bushmen, and most African bushmen would be equally insulted to be compared to the Indonesians. Many American blacks would be insulted by a remark that the third world countries consisted of bushmen, not because some don't, at least in part, but because being a developing nation is hardly confined to ones with a large black population.
I don't think the African bushmen are enjoying all the advantages of industrialization in South Africa, or even the lesser amount in Zimbabwe, and as you point out, there are plenty of other examples such as India and Pakistan that are in the same pickle. I do think that efforts to provide such things as internet access to these populations depends on what their sovereign government allows or cooperates with more than any other factor.
That's one of the reasons I originally mentioned Australia, by the way. South Africa (and the majority of African nations) would tell any international group wanting to facilitate net access for bushmen that they would have to put all monies in a government account, talk to the bushmen's representitives only through the government, and do absolutely everything the government's way. There would end up being no international progam, just an international grant to a national program. That opinion is based on how they have dealt with such things in the UN in the recent past.
So when someone posts about international programs assisting bushmen, I'm pointing out that if we take him litterally, instead of figuratively, (and in the process treating his use of "bushmen" as a likely insult), he's effectively talking about only the Australian bushmen. The Australian legal system allows an international organization to contract directly with bushmen or anyone else, to keep their funds in an offshore bank rather than a government account, and other such open practices.
As I understood it, they offered to fly him back to NZ, using the equivalent of military space available air, at their cost. That's not free to them, but at worst is also only 50$ or so additional fuel on a C-130. I wouldn't have objected if they billed him.
The offer to ship his plane back was at his own expense only. Best estimates for the expense are in the 50,000$ range. It's proffered without such alternatives as letting him pay to have fuel and additional food and such shipped in, so he can wait long enough to fly out himself when the fuel arrives and replenish the base's stocks in the process.
Again, I wouldn't object if they allowed this only if he can pay the costs to ship both fuel and replacement foodstuffs and such to cover the cost of his extra stay. If he's too poor to incur those costs, send him home at minimal expense and establish a lein against the plane to recoup all legitmate costs. (Hint, they are still low enough that the original owner will get most of the money that would result from selling the plane). It's not the law's job to help him keep his plane if he's too poor to afford to without donations.
The base administration could also decide, based on his conduct on base, that he would be a disruption or safety risk, and that's a legitimate way they could justify flying him home as quickly as reasonable, and not allowing other options.
The base policy appears to be to place difficult and expensive requirements in this pilot's path solely by refusing to allow the less onerous options. After all, they can't stop him from ordering fuel on his own except by not allowing him to use a radiophone for that purpose. They have to deliberately specify that he take the first flight out, rather than stay longer to get fuel in - rather than saying "Ok, you stay in the fuel shed, you pay your costs, you leave when the gas gets here."
The same goes for lots of other scenarios. I.e' if the base doesn't have the required grade fuel on hand, or would be dipping below their established safety margins, of course they have the right to refuse to supply him. On the other hand, that doesnt extend to a right to say "Yes we could sell him 400 liters and stll be well above the regulation safety margin, but we don't want to, BECAUSE that's letting him off too easy and he might not learn his lesson, OR he might not be a sufficent example to others.". Worse yet would be thinking that extends to a right to say "And we can't let him buy it elsewhere either, because that would also be letting him off too easy." There's no way to judge what might be a sufficient example for a completely hypothetical group of other tourist wanna-bes that may not exist.
Even if he does leave, he can refuse to allow them to treat the plane as salvage, and can pay for a trip to recover it far more cheaply than shipping it off, unless they are prepared to refuse him readmission if he's standing at the gate with 400 liters of fuel he brought in himself, trying to recover his own property. He's probably reluctant to risk it, for fear they will charge him a 1,000$ daily "hanger storage fee" or something, or just because of the old adage "Posession is 9/10ths of the law.". If people were announcing their intent to make an example of me, I'd be reluctant to trust them with my property too.
Still, that's why the base authorities don't really have the option to forclose on alternative means of recovering the plane. If they insist on it, he gets a lawyer, sues the US government for "taking without just compensation", and claims the plane's loss with his insuror. Lloyds of London (or whomever) then sues the government seperately for "Fraudulenty Compelling Salvage of an Otherwise Worthy Craft" (Or whatever it's called when it's planes not ships) and the next time he shows up at the gate, it's at US taxpayer expense, with two federal marshalls at his side, and the government has wasted a quarter of a million or so in taxpayer funds trying to stretch the hell out of the law to teach this guy and (speculated but not
Except he evidently didn't make those demands you are citing. A lot of that is the speculation of slashdotters rather than the facts, or even the speculations of the original articles.
I'm glad you wrote your second paragraph, as that may be closer to the truth. One of the articles used the phrase "give him fuel", and some people have taken that uncritically, but the rest of the facts suggest he has been willing to pay for many or all of his costs.
Look, analogies are often tricky things, but I'm going to try one here. Imagine someone's car runs out of gas near your home, and they knock on the door. Do you have to let them use the phone? No. But lets further assume you do. They start to call AAA to find a gas station that will deliver. You interupt them to inform them that they will have to call your cousine Ernie instead, and he will have to tow the car, and will charge 1,000 dollars for the tow. Are you acting charitibly or are you trying to grab a profit from this guy's misfortune?
The base isn't trying to make a financial profit , as it really costs a lot to have a plane shipped off the continent, but they appear to be trying to "profit", by using this pilot to discourage others from risking the penalties they are imposing.
This pilot is apparently trying to avoid paying 50,000$ or so to have his plane shipped back, but is also apparently willing to pay the approximately 33$ a gallon it takes to get fuel shipped in. Possibly there's some genuine dispute over him staying longer to get the plane out cheaper, or paying for his upkeep during the time, but that's not clear from the articles. What seems to be shown is that the base is deliberately refusing to allow him to use a cheaper solution in favor of requiring him to either abandon the plane or pay for the more expensive one.
They have offered him safe return of his plane, but only if he ships it at his expense, by the method they choose. You say they are not required to do more. I say that what we would regard as reprehensible if done by a private person claiming to be charitable does not stop being reprehensible just because it is done for a non-profit cause.
The 1 in 3 statistic was reported for a group of 18 to 25 year olds who chose racing bikes in a certain class. I wouldn't be surprised if it's accurate, assuming that they bought very high velocity bikes as their first cycle and took them out without much, if any practice with more typical road bikes.
I'd want a system where I coud easily pick and choose what gets displayed and how. Maybe start with just tach and speed (in digital of course), with a small font size.
Mike Nesmith is a big fan of bikes. With his involvement in the film, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he kept it after the production.
Patronage systems tend to go with monarchy. The patrons of the Renaissance were overwhelmingly dukes, lords, popes and archbishops. A modern version of patronage would need to involve the middle class and not just a few at the top, or it would become one of the ways those few would move towards becoming a hereditary nobility. This is equally a threat whether the 'elite' are direct patrons of the arts or politicians extending patronage with taxpayer money.
Performance as a source also sounds good at first, but has some drawbacks. First, it tends to reward the physically attractive but not necessarily talented musicians.
Some art forms also don't lend themselves to live performance - for example there were many electronic compositions from the 70's and 80s where the artists who wrote them were generally unable to perform them live with the synthesizer technology of that time. Larry Fast, for example did synthesized violin work with a very fragile, hand built and massive machine containing cued tape loops of every possible violin note. Rick Wakeman sometimes used to leave 80% or more of his gear behind when touring with Yes.
No less an artist than Beethoven was infamous for complaining that the orchestras of his time simply could not perform his works to his standards. Scriabin wanted massive light shows in time with his music, a dream that died unrealized. I don't know of modern artists facing equal limitations, but it at least seems possible there are some, and I for one have no idea how we could identify them, yet going to a system that rewards live performance more, without knowing more about them, sounds risky for that reason.
There's no reason to think photons have experiences, period. But if we do, a photon experiences no time in its transit through space, so nomally even a photon that could experience something wouldn't get any time to experience it in. In some exotic environments, such as a Bose Einstein condensate, a photon might actually be existing "for a time" from its (supposedly non-existant) point of view. So if a photon can experience something after all...
Oh no, we're waking them up! What happens when they catch on?
You're both right. Imagine that, different SF authors using the same title.
Yes, lets charge 1,000% for all emergency services. Heck, if he pays to bring in the fuel, food, and other costs expended on him, the base only breaks even. Lets go for a profit that would make SCOs potential winnage look small. You know what? Dune''s economic model sucked. That's why the fremen were already sitting on the most valuable stuff in the universe and couldn't figure out that they could hire mercenaries instead of fighting for it themselves.
He's probably actually good for something, or he wouldn't have racked up those other flights on his record without dieing before this. He also likely has enough money to fix at least some of the problems he's actually caused, probably all of them so far. If nothing else, he ought to be able to sell the book rights to this for enough to pay his costs plus a tidy profit. Still, he doesn't sound like a team player offhand and it wouldn't surprise me if he's in this pickle because his personality abraded someone's at the base. There's a reason why the US military gives a ribbon for wintering over in Antartica, with clusters if you do it more than once. (By the way, the ribbon starts pale, icy blue at the ends, and gets whiter and whiter with each band until it's a perfect snow color in the middle.).
"secretly?"
There's an optimum solution to the costs involved. The base either has the amount of fuel they estimate is a safe emergency reserve, or they are currently above that (I really doubt they are below, or that they don't have a formal policy on that point).
If they are going to have problems with some missions if they sell him the fuel, that is a real cost that can be documented, but they aren't relieved from seeking a solution that doesn't compromise their mission. If they would have to run a safety risk, over a mere 400 liters, well it's summer locally, so there is likely time to bring in some more fuel, quite possibly by less expensive means than a whole charter flight for just 400 liters.
If this pilot wants to stay two extra weeks or a month, to get the required fuel in more cheaply, then he can presumably pay for the additional room and board and other expenses.
Admittedly, the base could have a mission schedule that is so packed, they're barely keeping ahead with all the fuel reserves they can fly in, and it might take them months to build up an additional reserve, by which time it's winter locally. On the other hand, there's no indication this is so, and if it is likely, then it's equally likely that they are barely keeping ahead on food, and rescuing this guy is going to leave them turning cannibal this winter, or they are barely keeping ahead on some scientific supply, and the full research program is likely to be canceled with the slightest disruption of their schedule, till at least next year anyway.
If this pilot isn't actually going to draw down their reserves below the safety margin, he's also not responsible for some other idiot flying in at some other time when reserves are lower. Selling him fuel if the reserve is high also doesn't obligate the base to sell fuel to idiots number 2->N if the reserve isn't when they pop in. For that matter, any such case is unlikely to be identical to this one, and any decision will have to include differences, so there's really not a lot of precedent setting going on here.
He probably does want to attempt to fly the plane out. Either that's actually feasable or it isn't. Given that the plane made it in, despite an unforseen wind problem, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that the risk is significant. The Federal Aviation Administration's opinion there counts for a lot more than the base's administration's opinion. The pilot could be required by base admin. to wait for a favorable weather report, for example, and pay the extra boarding costs, but such limitations have to be reasonable, or the administrator is overstepping his expertese.
Regarding your point 3. There is no legal authority to impose such penalties here, whether those penalties might deter some other fool or not. Charging him 30 or 50$ a meal might be reasonable if it costs that much to ship extra food by cheapest feasable route. Charging him 1,000$ a meal just to make him discouraged is not.
Consider, for all the speculation about the base's fuel reserves or the cost of flying in fuel, the one thing the authorities have actually indicated is entirely related to your point #3 and none of the others. They haven't said that they face a problem maintaining a safety reserve, or keeping to a research schedule if they sell him fuel, just that they want to discourage "tourism".
Re: point 4, letting him make his own arrangements if he wants to get his plane out is probably the best solution, but as you point out, they can't do this and not give in on point #2. The authorities don't appear to be offering any options under point #4 except letting him ship the plane out on their chosen carrier at his expense. He evidently thinks there are cheaper ways to fix the problem that are still reasonably safe. The only reason the government agency seems to give for there NOT being cheaper ways that are still reasonably safe is that they don't want the idiot to get off too cheaply or he might try it again. Unless the base wants to cite a safety or cost re
"If they don't want to give him an easy way out by selling fuel, why should they?"
Because they don't have other options that work.
1. They can force him by court order to pay for his lodging and services until he's out of money, then get another court order to make the plane legally theirs and continue the process. That's basically legalized piracy, by forcing him by barratry to abandon the item as salvage. If he has the sense to hire a lawyer it will cost far more in legal fees to attempt it than any losses they have experienced, especially if one of the alternatives is to sell him the gas at a fair markup.
The resulting publicity will eventually wreck the scientific community's chances of getting government grants once some aspiring politician gets ahold of it.
2. They can throw him out on the ice to freeze. Believe it or not, that would result in multiple charges of first degree murder. There is no law that says "I rescued you, now your life is mine to dispose of as I see fit", however much some people would like for there to be.
3. They can find some excuse to arrest him, thus giving them the legal authority to force him on a plane out of Antartica, this would leave them with his plane sitting there, which is a taking without due compensation unless they either pay him for it or use something like the RICO act to claim it was part of a felony siezure, so they would have to arrest him for a felony and not a mere misdemeanor. What felony has he comitted? Without a felony charge, he has the right to recover his plane, for example by returning with enough fuel to fly it out after they fly him off the continent. Again, there is no law that would let them throw him off Antartica and say never come back. He could return if he chose and could afford to. He could also sue if the government puts additional costs in his way.
Yes, he was irresponsible. He also has enough money to pay for his irresponsible act, unless someone insists on tacking on extra costs to "teach him a lesson", which is an authority they simply don't have. If this goes to court, a judge is likely to take a very dim view of that. Keep thinking the base can somehow force him to either abandon his plane or shift to a more expensive means of recovering it, and when he comes back, he will have a few federal marshals accompanying him, at US taxpayer expense.
The word bushmen, particularly as the original poster used it, is also widely considered to be one of the most offensive terms around. While it might not be as offensive in some other contexts, the implication that all the inhabitants of the developing countries can be characterized as bushmen would offend many people indeed. Your own use of the term in response is not exactly a shining counter-example, as is your electing not to address how your use may correspond to or contrast with that of the first post in this chain despite my asking you about it.
I am sorry I descended to using a term such as "abo". It was a misguided effort to make a point (the more misguided since I thought it was percieved as patronizing, but not that much more offensive than some other terms. It's been a while since I was in Australia, and evidently it's moved up the list).
Since you either have no idea that a comment about the residents of the developing nations being bushmen might give similar offense, or did not bother to read the whole thread before you singled out my post, I thought I might give you an example of how you can, and doubtless will, be interpreted. Regrettably, I'm sure it did more harm than good.
The "Nuke's" reference seems rather straightforward to me. The First poster was writing about how it made no sense to give bushmen assistence in getting connected to the internet instead of building a national infrastructure.
If he meant the African bushmen, then he meant mostly residents of South Africa. South Africa demonstrated that they had the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon over 15 years ago. That surely requires an industrial society. The people he was calling bushmen thus mostly live in a country that already surely has the infrastructure he was advocating. (Whether they are sharing in it on a more local level or not). Given the collapse of apartheid, the legal status of these people is citizens of one of the most industrialized nations of the African continent.
If HE meant the Australian aboriginals, then again, last I looked Australia had an industrial infrastructure.
If he meant other bushmen somewhere, he'll have to specify whom he's fitting into that nomenclature, as I genuinely don't follow his point. If he's characterizing the inhabitants of such "third world" nations as Thailand, Bosnia, or Chile as bushmen, HE's the one to clarify what he means.
Rather than take offense at the way the first poster phrased his question, I chose to answer it as best I could, in particular because, stripped of the more loaded words, it was a genuine rational arguement for a position many hold without being particularly racist, but one with which I don't agree. If you're going to insist on
taking offense when I use one of his terms, then why did you not choose to take similar offense with the first poster?
Re: becoming subservient to the US - Do you want to apply to become one big state or six or so medium sized ones? It's your decision, of course, but please consider the ramifications of taking a bragging point away from Texans with our current leadership.
By the way, could you all talk like Paul Hogan for the next 20 years? If you could just preserve your "quaint ethnic dialects" long enough, you would create many new jobs for 'Merican/Australian translators in our courts and public schools. Don't worry, we'll put them in the districts that need 'Merican/Hispanic translators, so no actual education will take place.
On second thought, I live at about 800 meters above sea level. The UN and the seat of US government are both at about 10 to 50 Meters elevation. Please feel free to melt Antartica and flood both coasts of the US.
Oh, those bushmen - The UN doesn't recognize the african "bushmen" as a separate political entity vis-a-vis the current South African government (and the same situation goes for the smaller numbers to the north of SA, i.e. Zimbabwe). Any legislative control or funding from the UN would therefore be funneled through South Africa and other recognized nations.
Debate over whether a country that has developed atomic weapons needs to modernize further before expanding internet access, for all their other problems, seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
The UN _has_ issued non-binding resolutions on the treatment of Au. abo's, ergo making them possibly relevant to the original message.
Reference to the Austrailian aboriginals as bushmen is often considered both archaic and derogatory. Guess what, the same applies to the African ones. I used the term in response to a post where it was used first. If you find it inappropriate for me, might I ask if you found it equally inapproprate from that poster?
Tell you what, next time, I will just leap to a conclusion and call the poster a racist a**hole, rather than try to reply with some subtlty, or repect for a legitimate question even if the poster phrased it in a questionable manner. Sound's to me like you're playing "Let's you and him fight".
By the way, your last sentence is exactly what I was strongly implying. Nice to see it whizzed right by you. (And I was worried about maybe making it too blunt and sounding like I was preaching).