But as the nation as a whole - other than a very small minority - feels the security of the free state is quite well enough protected by the regular military, the military reserve, the national guard and various police forces, the need to form militias seems somewhat reduced.
Even if your conclusion is correct, the right is still protected by the Constitution so that in the case that more people become convinced that the security of the free state is in jeapardy then they can do something about it.
Further, I'm wondering where you see the interpretation that such a militia is to defend the security of the free state against its government.
From Federalist Paper #46:
[Note: The supposition referred to is (roughly paraphrased) that bad leaders are elected for long enough to allow for a military state, that said military power would be used to hold down the people.] Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Although the Federalist Papers do not carry any weight of law, they were written to argue for the formation of the Federal gov't, and to address the concerns that folks had about the formation of the Federal Government.
There are many writings from that period of time that treat gun ownership as a god-given right. The rights mentioned in the Constitution are not granted by the Constitition, they are protected by that document.
Although I will not dispute the belief that grammer is sometimes pedantic, the site you referenced does not refute anything. It only points out the silliness of some grammer rules.
Showing that something is silly is not the same thing as refuting it.
I wish I had mod points.
I've been married for over 15 years, and my wife reports that one of the best gifts I've ever given her (among another diamond ring, necklaces, clothes, furniture, etc.) is a gift certificate to a day of _interested_ shopping with me (ie. no hint from me that I'm tired of going back and forth between stores, that I really don't have an opinion on which item of clothing I like better, etc.)
This was also one of the hardest for me to give, as well. It's not that I'm not interested in shopping (or that I'm not interested in her) or in having her in nice clothes- it's that I honestly don't think my advice wrt clothes purchasing is worth very much.
Quite off-topic, but maybe it will help some well-intentioned but inexperienced male.:)
A smart thief would redeem $149 on a $150 card to keep the card with the $1 balance on it in his pocket.
Ok, I guess I would make a bad thief. Why would this be smart? Are you suggesting that the victim wouldn't notice the missing money, and would just go ahead and put more money on the card?
Parts of it are true in some parts of the USA. I don't know about the back ground check, but it is my understanding that NY state requires handgun licenses.
I believe that some states even require licenses for each specific handgun.
What in the heck are you talking about? What accountants are running around making "pow pow" sounds, and believing that this is effective?
(And, for the record, I think you're wrong. I believe that if the framers could have known what was being being done to the 2nd amendment (now and over the last 100 years or so), they'd have tried to clarify it a bit -- "...and when we say 'shall not be infringed', we mean it.")
Yeah, I know it's off topic.
He's got it backwards!
on
PC In An XP Box
·
· Score: 2, Funny
From page 4 of the article: The problem now was that I ran the risk of accidentally booting Linux from the "Windows XP Box" or even worse, booting Windows from the "Linux Box". That would not be good. It needed to be fool proof.
He should have it set up so that it boots XP when the guts are in the Linux box, and boots Linux when it's in the XP box. That way he can wave his hand at the computer and say "That's my XP box that runs Linux", or "That's XP running in my Linux box" and confuse any local annoying computer know-it-alls (that don't).
The thing is is that he made this money. And when I say made, I don't mean earned, I mean he and other stakeholders in Microsoft created that money from what would never have been. As in, far from "empty[ing] the pool", the pool of money is bigger because of what Microsoft is worth.
Maybe you understood it but forgot to make it clear, and maybe you didn't. The dollar value that is assigned to stocks is given by assuming that you can sell all of your holdings without affecting the stock price downward. You can only do this if you have a small enough portion of the overall stock to not create too much supply.
Given this definition, I disagree with your claim that BG made the money (out of what, whole cloth?). He created a company and built a demand for his stock. The belief (by investors) that MS will continue to do well (as measured by the bottom line) is what pushes the MS stock price up, and accounts for a significant portion of BG's worth.
Having all of your value tied up in stocks and bonds doesn't give you much liquidity. If you have "things" (cars, homes, paintings, furniture), it can take a while to find a seller, and sometimes you have to find a specialist to take care of that for you (which is why you hear about "liquidators" who have cheap furniture, or whatever).
The value that is in the stock market is not real money until you sell your holdings and get cash. I say then, that your statement
the pool of money is bigger because of what Microsoft is worth
You may not think that colliding other TLDs is a bad idea, but at least realize that they are introducing collisions.
Icann had/has the privilege/responsibility of administering the root '.' domain. They had the power to potentially create any toplevel domain that they saw fit to create, and most people recognized the reality of "icann could create a.info,.xxx,.xyz,.foobar, etc..."
For youcann or any other "alternative root" to suggest that icann "introduced the collision" is a deception. The whole top-level namespace was for icann to administer! Just because icann hadn't created the real toplevel.xxx (or whatever) domain yet doesn't take away from the fact that it's the alternate roots are the ones that introduced the collision.
My whole argument is based on the following premise: There must be one view of the domain namespace in order for everybody to be able to successfully communicate using those domain names. The only orderly way to allow for that single view to exist is to have one organization that is responsible for administering that namespace.
Case in point. The IT guy in charge of maintaining the SAP database on Solaris sent me an email saying that he knows nothing about Unix, is unwilling to learn shell scripting, and requesting that I change one of our product's requirements so that he doesn't have to do any extra work.
Here's a different thing to think about-- is the script that you want him to write going to be part of the shipping product? If it is, then what he's being asked to do is develop a part of the product and therefore is crossing the 'firm division' between your two groups. If what he's being asked to write is something that all of your customers are also going to have to write in order to successfully use your product, then maybe a reevaluation of the Marketing Requirements is in order.
Do all of your customers (or targetted customers) for this product have SAP installations run by competent unix admins?
The group that I manage admins the unix machines for our developers-- any time they request changes to how our machines are configured (to make their lives easier), they are always reminded that our customers will end up having to make those same changes, which means that the developers will have to explain those changes in a product readme.
They usually decide that it's in the customer's interest for the programmer to do the work (and make things easy for the customer)
ISTM that you are confusing "uniqueness" with "non-replaceable". Just because you can point to notable figures from history who played an important role in history doesn't negate that statement (the way it was implied in the context of which it was made).
Any sysadmin who starts to believe that their skill and skill set are irreplaceable and who starts treating others as if everybody else recognizes "the fact", will soon find themselves replaced. Just because it doesn't happen at the start of "the attitude" doesn't mean that the process of replacing you hasn't started. The process starts as soon as your boss recognizes that they shouldn't have to put up with your attitude.
I saw the trailer for I, Robot the LoTR as well. The theater was packed, and when they flashed the "3 Laws Safe", I busted out laughing because of the context that it was shown (as if it was a commercial). I honestly wonder how many of the people in the theater even knew what "3 Laws Safe" would mean.
It's not tempting for me at all, since I still get my sci-fi channel (Stargate SG1!!!) fix from Dish, but comcast is apparently just starting a $400 dish buyback program to get back customers. The money would be nice (or however they apply the credit), but I still think I'm better off with Dish.
My daughter might miss Nick, but she's been starting to play more Planetside and other online games. I suspect she'll come through this OK.
Hopefully they're cracking down on all the apps that have to run as admin.
I'd like to see them go one step further, but suspect it's only partially an OS design issue. I'm tired of (typically) MS games that require admin privileges to install. There are plenty of games that my power users (my kids) can install, but the MS games all require admin privs-- presumably so that they can make registry changes?
One of my own favorite sysadmin stories comes from when I was doing support in a General's staff office. The user had been having problems with her computer so I had the computer unplugged while I had it opened and was replacing the modem.
In the middle of the procedure, a device on the desk next to us starting this warbling noise-- user jumps a little bit and says "What does that mean?".
"Well, seeing as that device is your phone, I think it means that someone is calling you."
From the article: ICANN ordered VeriSign to temporarily shut down the search service in October 2003 while it underwent technical review. The reviewing body has not yet issued a decision on the service.
This is not quite correct. VeriSign was directed to take the wildcard record out of the zone, but the search service is still there (last time I checked, anyway) for anybody to use who wants to.
What folks object to is the fact that the method that they have chosen to implement this "service" can only be done by someone who is controlling the.com zone.
I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. Maybe the fact that he's been defending Microsoft will give him good insight...[snip]
I think those things are irrelevent. While at MS either he was doing things that he disliked and thought were wrong, or he was in favor of those actions. If he thought they were wrong, what kind of guy is he to work and support them for so long. If he supported them, how in the world can he be the guy that we want in that position.
The only possible defense that I can see is the old "a guy's got to eat" thing, which is not a very strong defense for a lawyer who was probably quite capable of finding a job that didn't require him to sell out.
But you could, perhaps, make it do an automatic but thourough lookup of the infected domain, attempt to determine the associated admin email, and fire off an email to said admin.
I think that this sort of thing has already proven to be too difficult to do in the case of spam. Why do you think it will be easier to do with viruses?
I can't even find out how to contact my "cable modem neighbors" to notify them of problems.
On top of this you are definitely on crack if you think that "launching counter attacks to clean infected hosts!" is a) a good idea or b) legal.
What if it's a tool that you have deployed in your network, and it just so happens that the honeypot is a little bit misconfigured, allowing it to respond to all hosts that attempt to infect it?
How is this then different from desktops that are poorly written/designed or misconfigured allowing them to spread viruses on the internet?
The purpose of the tool (virus prone desktop vs. honeypot) is a bit different, but the end result is the same (a 3rd party's computer is modified without their permission). What makes the user of the desktop more defensible than the user of the honeypot?
Make it subtly obvious that your department does not service user error.:P
I actually disagree. If you want IT/admin support to always be reactive, and always have your work environment dictated to you, then there's nothing wrong with your suggestion.
If you want your IT organization (or subset thereof) to be respected and provide value to the company, then your expertise needs to be available to all members of your company (where it is most valuable). If there's a user who is not trainable (given a normal amount of effort), then you need to let that person's boss (or HR) know-- most job positions require some level of computer familiarity.
I actually find the.m4 files that make the.cf file more difficult to edit.
Why would you edit the.m4 files instead of the.mc files? Editing the.m4 files is like editing files in/usr/include to change change the behavior of your code.
Slashdot Mirror
But as the nation as a whole - other than a very small minority - feels the security of the free state is quite well enough protected by the regular military, the military reserve, the national guard and various police forces, the need to form militias seems somewhat reduced.
Even if your conclusion is correct, the right is still protected by the Constitution so that in the case that more people become convinced that the security of the free state is in jeapardy then they can do something about it.
Further, I'm wondering where you see the interpretation that such a militia is to defend the security of the free state against its government.
From Federalist Paper #46: [Note: The supposition referred to is (roughly paraphrased) that bad leaders are elected for long enough to allow for a military state, that said military power would be used to hold down the people.] Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Although the Federalist Papers do not carry any weight of law, they were written to argue for the formation of the Federal gov't, and to address the concerns that folks had about the formation of the Federal Government.
There are many writings from that period of time that treat gun ownership as a god-given right. The rights mentioned in the Constitution are not granted by the Constitition, they are protected by that document.
Maybe cars are the first step to skynet/the matrix
If so, they showed their hand a little bit too early!
Although I will not dispute the belief that grammer is sometimes pedantic, the site you referenced does not refute anything. It only points out the silliness of some grammer rules.
Showing that something is silly is not the same thing as refuting it.
I wish I had mod points.
:)
I've been married for over 15 years, and my wife reports that one of the best gifts I've ever given her (among another diamond ring, necklaces, clothes, furniture, etc.) is a gift certificate to a day of _interested_ shopping with me (ie. no hint from me that I'm tired of going back and forth between stores, that I really don't have an opinion on which item of clothing I like better, etc.)
This was also one of the hardest for me to give, as well. It's not that I'm not interested in shopping (or that I'm not interested in her) or in having her in nice clothes- it's that I honestly don't think my advice wrt clothes purchasing is worth very much.
Quite off-topic, but maybe it will help some well-intentioned but inexperienced male.
A smart thief would redeem $149 on a $150 card to keep the card with the $1 balance on it in his pocket.
Ok, I guess I would make a bad thief. Why would this be smart? Are you suggesting that the victim wouldn't notice the missing money, and would just go ahead and put more money on the card?
Parts of it are true in some parts of the USA. I don't know about the back ground check, but it is my understanding that NY state requires handgun licenses.
I believe that some states even require licenses for each specific handgun.
What in the heck are you talking about? What accountants are running around making "pow pow" sounds, and believing that this is effective?
(And, for the record, I think you're wrong. I believe that if the framers could have known what was being being done to the 2nd amendment (now and over the last 100 years or so), they'd have tried to clarify it a bit -- "...and when we say 'shall not be infringed', we mean it.")
Yeah, I know it's off topic.
From page 4 of the article: The problem now was that I ran the risk of accidentally booting Linux from the "Windows XP Box" or even worse, booting Windows from the "Linux Box". That would not be good. It needed to be fool proof.
He should have it set up so that it boots XP when the guts are in the Linux box, and boots Linux when it's in the XP box. That way he can wave his hand at the computer and say "That's my XP box that runs Linux", or "That's XP running in my Linux box" and confuse any local annoying computer know-it-alls (that don't).
The thing is is that he made this money. And when I say made, I don't mean earned, I mean he and other stakeholders in Microsoft created that money from what would never have been. As in, far from "empty[ing] the pool", the pool of money is bigger because of what Microsoft is worth.
Maybe you understood it but forgot to make it clear, and maybe you didn't. The dollar value that is assigned to stocks is given by assuming that you can sell all of your holdings without affecting the stock price downward. You can only do this if you have a small enough portion of the overall stock to not create too much supply.
Given this definition, I disagree with your claim that BG made the money (out of what, whole cloth?). He created a company and built a demand for his stock. The belief (by investors) that MS will continue to do well (as measured by the bottom line) is what pushes the MS stock price up, and accounts for a significant portion of BG's worth.
Having all of your value tied up in stocks and bonds doesn't give you much liquidity. If you have "things" (cars, homes, paintings, furniture), it can take a while to find a seller, and sometimes you have to find a specialist to take care of that for you (which is why you hear about "liquidators" who have cheap furniture, or whatever).
The value that is in the stock market is not real money until you sell your holdings and get cash. I say then, that your statement
the pool of money is bigger because of what Microsoft is worth
is utter nonsense.
...then we have proof they've been lying all along.
You mean all the times they've been caught before weren't good enough?
Yes, I know you meant "lying about DRM". They've been caught often enough at it that I've
#define Default_believe_MS 0
You may not think that colliding other TLDs is a bad idea, but at least realize that they are introducing collisions.
.info, .xxx, .xyz, .foobar, etc..."
.xxx (or whatever) domain yet doesn't take away from the fact that it's the alternate roots are the ones that introduced the collision.
Icann had/has the privilege/responsibility of administering the root '.' domain. They had the power to potentially create any toplevel domain that they saw fit to create, and most people recognized the reality of "icann could create a
For youcann or any other "alternative root" to suggest that icann "introduced the collision" is a deception. The whole top-level namespace was for icann to administer! Just because icann hadn't created the real toplevel
My whole argument is based on the following premise: There must be one view of the domain namespace in order for everybody to be able to successfully communicate using those domain names. The only orderly way to allow for that single view to exist is to have one organization that is responsible for administering that namespace.
Case in point. The IT guy in charge of maintaining the SAP database on Solaris sent me an email saying that he knows nothing about Unix, is unwilling to learn shell scripting, and requesting that I change one of our product's requirements so that he doesn't have to do any extra work.
Here's a different thing to think about-- is the script that you want him to write going to be part of the shipping product? If it is, then what he's being asked to do is develop a part of the product and therefore is crossing the 'firm division' between your two groups. If what he's being asked to write is something that all of your customers are also going to have to write in order to successfully use your product, then maybe a reevaluation of the Marketing Requirements is in order.
Do all of your customers (or targetted customers) for this product have SAP installations run by competent unix admins?
The group that I manage admins the unix machines for our developers-- any time they request changes to how our machines are configured (to make their lives easier), they are always reminded that our customers will end up having to make those same changes, which means that the developers will have to explain those changes in a product readme.
They usually decide that it's in the customer's interest for the programmer to do the work (and make things easy for the customer)
ISTM that you are confusing "uniqueness" with "non-replaceable". Just because you can point to notable figures from history who played an important role in history doesn't negate that statement (the way it was implied in the context of which it was made).
Any sysadmin who starts to believe that their skill and skill set are irreplaceable and who starts treating others as if everybody else recognizes "the fact", will soon find themselves replaced. Just because it doesn't happen at the start of "the attitude" doesn't mean that the process of replacing you hasn't started. The process starts as soon as your boss recognizes that they shouldn't have to put up with your attitude.
I saw the trailer for I, Robot the LoTR as well. The theater was packed, and when they flashed the "3 Laws Safe", I busted out laughing because of the context that it was shown (as if it was a commercial). I honestly wonder how many of the people in the theater even knew what "3 Laws Safe" would mean.
It's not tempting for me at all, since I still get my sci-fi channel (Stargate SG1!!!) fix from Dish, but comcast is apparently just starting a $400 dish buyback program to get back customers. The money would be nice (or however they apply the credit), but I still think I'm better off with Dish.
My daughter might miss Nick, but she's been starting to play more Planetside and other online games. I suspect she'll come through this OK.
Hopefully they're cracking down on all the apps that have to run as admin.
I'd like to see them go one step further, but suspect it's only partially an OS design issue. I'm tired of (typically) MS games that require admin privileges to install. There are plenty of games that my power users (my kids) can install, but the MS games all require admin privs-- presumably so that they can make registry changes?
One of my own favorite sysadmin stories comes from when I was doing support in a General's staff office. The user had been having problems with her computer so I had the computer unplugged while I had it opened and was replacing the modem.
In the middle of the procedure, a device on the desk next to us starting this warbling noise-- user jumps a little bit and says "What does that mean?".
"Well, seeing as that device is your phone, I think it means that someone is calling you."
From the article:
.com zone.
ICANN ordered VeriSign to temporarily shut down the search service in October 2003 while it underwent technical review. The reviewing body has not yet issued a decision on the service.
This is not quite correct. VeriSign was directed to take the wildcard record out of the zone, but the search service is still there (last time I checked, anyway) for anybody to use who wants to.
What folks object to is the fact that the method that they have chosen to implement this "service" can only be done by someone who is controlling the
I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. Maybe the fact that he's been defending Microsoft will give him good insight...[snip]
I think those things are irrelevent. While at MS either he was doing things that he disliked and thought were wrong, or he was in favor of those actions. If he thought they were wrong, what kind of guy is he to work and support them for so long. If he supported them, how in the world can he be the guy that we want in that position.
The only possible defense that I can see is the old "a guy's got to eat" thing, which is not a very strong defense for a lawyer who was probably quite capable of finding a job that didn't require him to sell out.
You don't see too many 6 year old compaq's in Datacentres. You do see plenty of high-end sparcs from that era.
That's because they're so darn expensive to replace!
But you could, perhaps, make it do an automatic but thourough lookup of the infected domain, attempt to determine the associated admin email, and fire off an email to said admin.
I think that this sort of thing has already proven to be too difficult to do in the case of spam. Why do you think it will be easier to do with viruses?
I can't even find out how to contact my "cable modem neighbors" to notify them of problems.
On top of this you are definitely on crack if you think that "launching counter attacks to clean infected hosts!" is a) a good idea or b) legal.
What if it's a tool that you have deployed in your network, and it just so happens that the honeypot is a little bit misconfigured, allowing it to respond to all hosts that attempt to infect it?
How is this then different from desktops that are poorly written/designed or misconfigured allowing them to spread viruses on the internet?
The purpose of the tool (virus prone desktop vs. honeypot) is a bit different, but the end result is the same (a 3rd party's computer is modified without their permission). What makes the user of the desktop more defensible than the user of the honeypot?
Make it subtly obvious that your department does not service user error. :P
I actually disagree. If you want IT/admin support to always be reactive, and always have your work environment dictated to you, then there's nothing wrong with your suggestion.
If you want your IT organization (or subset thereof) to be respected and provide value to the company, then your expertise needs to be available to all members of your company (where it is most valuable). If there's a user who is not trainable (given a normal amount of effort), then you need to let that person's boss (or HR) know-- most job positions require some level of computer familiarity.
Why in the world would you interrupt your previous activity to open the door! Now that's crazy!
I actually find the .m4 files that make the .cf file more difficult to edit.
.m4 files instead of the .mc files? Editing the .m4 files is like editing files in /usr/include to change change the behavior of your code.
Why would you edit the