If you throw all the money into the street you're harming the people who own the money, and the people who work at the institution you've just sprung wide open.
If you steal a credit card number or two or nine... you have a credit card number. You can use it, or you can not. As it nowhere mentions in the article that they used it, we can safely say they didn't, as that would have been a much more impressive story to write about.
There's no harm done until money is stolen. It's still a crime, I grant you. But gaining access to credit systems and getting numbers hasn't actually a) physically harmed anyone, b) mentally harmed anyone, or c) deprived anyone of property. So what's the big deal? Throw them out on their ear, patch up the flaws and carry on with life.
As for getting into their systems "in some nice way that left them unharmed", that's the only way. If you break the system, how do you plan to use it? Or to use your analogy (flawed as it is) how do you intend to steal the money if you nuke the bank first? Stand at the five-mile limit with dark glasses on and wait for the crisped notes to come raining down out of the sky?
How about you have a big cup of shut the hell up until you've donated a few billion to needy causes?
I fail to see how much he's given away has any bearing on the situation. He still has more money, by many many orders of magnitude, than me and everyone I personally know all put together. More than will pass through my and my acquaintances' hands in our lifetimes, I don't doubt. He's not going to want for money for the central heating in his dotage, is he? So pull him down off that pedestal, for God's sake.
He's a greedy and conniving man, with very little respect for the human race as far as I can tell. He does not deserve our admiration or our defence.
The page filters at my old school wouldn't allow us to read any chemistry-related website with any use of the words "bond", "bonds" or bonding", believe it or not, so it could be damn well anything.
How would a creationist filter work anyway? How does it know whether the actual tone of the text is pro- or anti-evolutionary...?
I don't know... there's been a stage-play of The Hobbit doing the rounds for a few years now. It twice came to Edinburgh but I didn't catch it either time. Is anyone else familiar with that play, and how did they do the Bilbo disappearing tricks?
That would be a marvellous idea if it weren't for the fact that you haven't coined a new word or used an existing word in a new context, you've misspelt an existing word. That makes it wrong, not new.
I fail to see how - no matter how much you tilt your head and squint your eyes - virii can be taken for a misspelling of viruses. Please explain. Everyone else admits that people who use 'virii' meant to spell it that way. Which means they meant to differentiate it from the accepted use of the word virus (that is, from a biological virus).
Perhaps you should look up the definition of that word, since the only time that pointing out a common spelling mistake would be hypocritical would be if I were to make one myself.
Yes, that would be true if it was nothing more than a common spelling mistake. However many people - myself included - happen to like it for one reason or another and intentionally don't use the word 'viruses'.
I am fully aware what hypocrisy is, and I also believe it would be hypocritical of you to rubbish neologisms that you don't like whilst giving the reason that they're badly spelled, all the while using words which are just as new to the English language without a second thought.
What the heck are virii? The plural of virus is viruses.
Oh God not this again. Are people so goddamned lacking in imagination that if they see a word being coined they have to shoot it down in flames?
Have a good look at the jargon file. There are many words there which are corruptions of "normal" words used in reference to modern technology. That doesn't make them wrong. It makes them new. How many of you numbnuts would have hated Shakespeare for all his neologisms? Here's a word I'd like you to read up about: 'hypocrisy'.
"states in part that I am to disclose to the company anything that I create wether or not during company time, and wether or not it relates to the company. I also must agree that these same creations or inventions become the sole property of the company."
What?
What?? Did I just read that correctly? You have signed away all rights to anything you create while you are employed by them, no matter if it was at home at the weekend or at work during office hours. Are you absolutely stark raving bonkers?
I'm left speechless that anyone want let this happen to them once, never mind at every single employer they've ever had...
That's still not gonna work... considering they have thus far shown anything tangible in the way of evidence they've managed to string this farce along a pretty long time. The next person to try this will claim their code's been copied and heavily obfuscated, or that the lawyer's word is false, that there's some sort of great conspiracy, yadda yadda. The world is always gonna have chancers, and that's all SCO really.
I think he was probably pointing out the absurdity of the person's place of work having a microwave but not a kettle...
If all else fails though, buy 1 travel kettle, 1 cafetiere, 1 bag of beans. Grind small amount of coffee in the morning before leaving the house, or grind and freeze in larger batches. Take a day's worth of coffee, with kettle and cafetiere and favourite mug as you leave the house. Problem solved, case closed.
...just wanted to make money off of Microsoft's name...
And how, pray tell, was he going to do that? If I type Microsoft into Google will it jump through some clever linguistic hoops to equate that word with mikerowesoft? I didn't know search engines understood phonetics nowadays... Or did you think he was going to start selling an office suite called MikeRoweSoft Offiss, and nobody would notice the difference?
It was a programmers' forum he was setting up, not a goddamned transnational corporation! Nobody is going to confuse the two, no matter how dense. Not even you, I think, would fail to spot the differences.
...he SAID he picked it because it would be cool to have a name like Microsoft's
You do realise you just defeated your own argument there, don't you? He didn't say "I chose the name through a desire to pass off what I was doing as a legitimate enterprise of Microsoft Corporation's" but instead "because it would be cool". You are, it would appear, one of the humour impaired, the sense-of-perspective challenged and the clueless.
Don't buy into the hype.
There isn't any hype that I can see, apart from that which you have swallowed wholesale - that one guy with the right name managed to get a website that would bring down Microsoft, bring international commerce as we know it to a standstill and maybe even threaten the very fabric of the space-time continuum. Lighten up.
Don't be an asshole, it was his name. You can't sue someone for using their own name, no matter how many times McD's try to take small-town burger joints to court because they're owned by one "Hamish McDonald" or whatever.
I've been waiting years for them to stop arsing about with the rights for Iain M Banks' novels and actually make a movie! Supposedly they're making The Player of Games... but you know, at this rate maybe we'll see it shortly before Doomsday.
Oh how much would I pay to see Use of Weapons on the big screen.:)
Mmm, so wonderful.
I went with a friend to see Matrix Revolutions last week and it was horrible. As soon as it was finished we bought tickets for Kill Bill and walked back in to the cinema. I was a bit apprehensive because I'd just sat through an incredibly long film for absolutely no reward and I didn't want to do it again.
But am I ever glad we did. If I'd gone home that night without seeing it how could I have slept thinking Matrix Revolutions was the epitomy of modern cinema? The Wachowski brothers need shot; long live Tarantino!
- Ithika
Nah, if Frodo were ever gonna make a big snatch at the ring of power without Bilbo's say-so it would have happened a long time ago... From the start of the book to the point of Bilbo's great party (and departure for Rivendell) is, I believe, 50 years.
The explanation is probably something closer to the fact that the *ring* didn't need a new master, as it was perfectly happy where it was. Sauron was all-but-dead and there was nothing for the ring to do but bide its time. Being in the posession of Frodo once it had settled into Bilbo's hands was no more advantageous to it in getting back to its true owner.
Without the calculator theres no way 90^ of us could do calculus.
Well maybe you're talking about more advanced calculus than I am, but all the stuff I've done (I stopped in second year of university) was only really possible on paper. Calculators aren't really all that great at partial differentiation, etc.
It doesn't have to be transcribed scene for scene, word for word, for the *point* of the story to be made.
Yes, but it's the point of the story that you lose when you remove the Saruman/Sharkey/Scouring section. The audience can never know if any of it was worth the effort until the hobbits return to the Shire and try to find their old lives again. For all that Tolkien didn't like allegory, LotR accurately parallels his own experiences in the trenches of the Great War. For that reason alone the ending - the displacement in civvy street of the demobbed soldier - should be shown.
Well, it's a commonly held philosophical and socio/biological belief that altruism is just a subtler form of selfishness. People give to charity for the sense of well-being it gives them. Parents care for and feed their children because they carry 50% of their own genetic material; it helps to spread their genetic code if the offspring survive.
Whether any of this is true is another matter. Personally I don't believe it.
I shall use the phrase someone coined previously, IANAMB (...Microbiologist) but I believe being a virus it would have RNA instead of DNA. And also small things like viruses and bacteria tend to have highly optimised genetic make-up, although no-one seems to know why.
I say this only as someone who greatly enjoyed Matt Ridley's book 'Genome'. If you can find a copy of that or his newer book ('Nature through Nurture' I think) I'd recommend them highly.
Indeed, it's not all that easy to scald yourself. I've got a fairly large and ugly scar on my leg from an entire kettle full of boiling water. The only reason it did so much damage was because I was six months old at the time, and due to the ignorance of the doctors that treated me.
That very same kettle of water would have been perfectly drinkable at that temperature, even though it's scarred me for life.
But then again, maybe they just *do* like drinking tepid coffee in the US...
Slashdot Mirror
If you throw all the money into the street you're harming the people who own the money, and the people who work at the institution you've just sprung wide open.
If you steal a credit card number or two or nine... you have a credit card number. You can use it, or you can not. As it nowhere mentions in the article that they used it, we can safely say they didn't, as that would have been a much more impressive story to write about.
There's no harm done until money is stolen. It's still a crime, I grant you. But gaining access to credit systems and getting numbers hasn't actually a) physically harmed anyone, b) mentally harmed anyone, or c) deprived anyone of property. So what's the big deal? Throw them out on their ear, patch up the flaws and carry on with life.
As for getting into their systems "in some nice way that left them unharmed", that's the only way. If you break the system, how do you plan to use it? Or to use your analogy (flawed as it is) how do you intend to steal the money if you nuke the bank first? Stand at the five-mile limit with dark glasses on and wait for the crisped notes to come raining down out of the sky?
I fail to see how much he's given away has any bearing on the situation. He still has more money, by many many orders of magnitude, than me and everyone I personally know all put together. More than will pass through my and my acquaintances' hands in our lifetimes, I don't doubt. He's not going to want for money for the central heating in his dotage, is he? So pull him down off that pedestal, for God's sake.
He's a greedy and conniving man, with very little respect for the human race as far as I can tell. He does not deserve our admiration or our defence.
How would a creationist filter work anyway? How does it know whether the actual tone of the text is pro- or anti-evolutionary...?
I don't know... there's been a stage-play of The Hobbit doing the rounds for a few years now. It twice came to Edinburgh but I didn't catch it either time. Is anyone else familiar with that play, and how did they do the Bilbo disappearing tricks?
Brass Eye!
I fail to see how - no matter how much you tilt your head and squint your eyes - virii can be taken for a misspelling of viruses. Please explain. Everyone else admits that people who use 'virii' meant to spell it that way. Which means they meant to differentiate it from the accepted use of the word virus (that is, from a biological virus).
Yes, that would be true if it was nothing more than a common spelling mistake. However many people - myself included - happen to like it for one reason or another and intentionally don't use the word 'viruses'.
I am fully aware what hypocrisy is, and I also believe it would be hypocritical of you to rubbish neologisms that you don't like whilst giving the reason that they're badly spelled, all the while using words which are just as new to the English language without a second thought.
Regards,
ithika.
Oh God not this again. Are people so goddamned lacking in imagination that if they see a word being coined they have to shoot it down in flames?
Have a good look at the jargon file. There are many words there which are corruptions of "normal" words used in reference to modern technology. That doesn't make them wrong. It makes them new. How many of you numbnuts would have hated Shakespeare for all his neologisms? Here's a word I'd like you to read up about: 'hypocrisy'.
What?
What?? Did I just read that correctly? You have signed away all rights to anything you create while you are employed by them, no matter if it was at home at the weekend or at work during office hours. Are you absolutely stark raving bonkers?
I'm left speechless that anyone want let this happen to them once, never mind at every single employer they've ever had...
Progress bar appears and slowly fills up:
...Downloading images...
...Scanning images...
...Identifying subjects...
Animated camera-shaped cartoon character appears and says:
"It looks like you're organising your porn collection. Would you like help?"
No. >Click<
That's still not gonna work... considering they have thus far shown anything tangible in the way of evidence they've managed to string this farce along a pretty long time. The next person to try this will claim their code's been copied and heavily obfuscated, or that the lawyer's word is false, that there's some sort of great conspiracy, yadda yadda. The world is always gonna have chancers, and that's all SCO really.
If all else fails though, buy 1 travel kettle, 1 cafetiere, 1 bag of beans. Grind small amount of coffee in the morning before leaving the house, or grind and freeze in larger batches. Take a day's worth of coffee, with kettle and cafetiere and favourite mug as you leave the house. Problem solved, case closed.
Oh you know him personally now do you?
And how, pray tell, was he going to do that? If I type Microsoft into Google will it jump through some clever linguistic hoops to equate that word with mikerowesoft? I didn't know search engines understood phonetics nowadays... Or did you think he was going to start selling an office suite called MikeRoweSoft Offiss, and nobody would notice the difference?
It was a programmers' forum he was setting up, not a goddamned transnational corporation! Nobody is going to confuse the two, no matter how dense. Not even you, I think, would fail to spot the differences.
You do realise you just defeated your own argument there, don't you? He didn't say "I chose the name through a desire to pass off what I was doing as a legitimate enterprise of Microsoft Corporation's" but instead "because it would be cool". You are, it would appear, one of the humour impaired, the sense-of-perspective challenged and the clueless.
Don't buy into the hype.
There isn't any hype that I can see, apart from that which you have swallowed wholesale - that one guy with the right name managed to get a website that would bring down Microsoft, bring international commerce as we know it to a standstill and maybe even threaten the very fabric of the space-time continuum. Lighten up.
Don't be an asshole, it was his name. You can't sue someone for using their own name, no matter how many times McD's try to take small-town burger joints to court because they're owned by one "Hamish McDonald" or whatever.
Ah but it is a valid claim. It's called 'passing off'.
You do realise Robert Rodriguez directed From Dusk Till Dawn, don't you? You don't? Well, that just goes to show how little credibility you have.
Please try again later, thank you for calling...
Oh how much would I pay to see Use of Weapons on the big screen. :)
- Ithika
Mmm, so wonderful. I went with a friend to see Matrix Revolutions last week and it was horrible. As soon as it was finished we bought tickets for Kill Bill and walked back in to the cinema. I was a bit apprehensive because I'd just sat through an incredibly long film for absolutely no reward and I didn't want to do it again. But am I ever glad we did. If I'd gone home that night without seeing it how could I have slept thinking Matrix Revolutions was the epitomy of modern cinema? The Wachowski brothers need shot; long live Tarantino! - Ithika
Damn right! A friend of mine pretty near covered me in popcorn first time he saw that scene.
Nah, if Frodo were ever gonna make a big snatch at the ring of power without Bilbo's say-so it would have happened a long time ago... From the start of the book to the point of Bilbo's great party (and departure for Rivendell) is, I believe, 50 years.
The explanation is probably something closer to the fact that the *ring* didn't need a new master, as it was perfectly happy where it was. Sauron was all-but-dead and there was nothing for the ring to do but bide its time. Being in the posession of Frodo once it had settled into Bilbo's hands was no more advantageous to it in getting back to its true owner.
- Ithika
Well, that could apply to the whole of the EU (230VAC) and Australia (240VAC I believe), so it's not outside of the bounds of possibility.
- ithika.
Well maybe you're talking about more advanced calculus than I am, but all the stuff I've done (I stopped in second year of university) was only really possible on paper. Calculators aren't really all that great at partial differentiation, etc.
- ithika.
Yes, but it's the point of the story that you lose when you remove the Saruman/Sharkey/Scouring section. The audience can never know if any of it was worth the effort until the hobbits return to the Shire and try to find their old lives again. For all that Tolkien didn't like allegory, LotR accurately parallels his own experiences in the trenches of the Great War. For that reason alone the ending - the displacement in civvy street of the demobbed soldier - should be shown.
- Ithika
Well, it's a commonly held philosophical and socio/biological belief that altruism is just a subtler form of selfishness. People give to charity for the sense of well-being it gives them. Parents care for and feed their children because they carry 50% of their own genetic material; it helps to spread their genetic code if the offspring survive.
Whether any of this is true is another matter. Personally I don't believe it.
- Ithika.
I shall use the phrase someone coined previously, IANAMB (...Microbiologist) but I believe being a virus it would have RNA instead of DNA. And also small things like viruses and bacteria tend to have highly optimised genetic make-up, although no-one seems to know why.
I say this only as someone who greatly enjoyed Matt Ridley's book 'Genome'. If you can find a copy of that or his newer book ('Nature through Nurture' I think) I'd recommend them highly.
- Ithika.
Indeed, it's not all that easy to scald yourself. I've got a fairly large and ugly scar on my leg from an entire kettle full of boiling water. The only reason it did so much damage was because I was six months old at the time, and due to the ignorance of the doctors that treated me.
That very same kettle of water would have been perfectly drinkable at that temperature, even though it's scarred me for life.
But then again, maybe they just *do* like drinking tepid coffee in the US...
- Ithika.