Likely be design, since IIRC, all the dns servers were like this. It could even be back in arpa net days.
The reason I say its likely is because computers were slower then, and doing case insenstive comparisons is more expensive cpu-wise than case sensitive.
Bull. There's nothing that's impossible to do on Windows. Nor are you any good judge, since you seem adverse to learning newer technologies. I bet building a website on Asp.Net is much easier than one on PHP.
Bullshit (that anyone brought it on themselves). This guy (and his helpers) lied, and as a result people lost their retirement. It was a direct result of the fraud that the people lost out.
Should we now assume every business is lying? Then the logical conclusion is to stuff your money into a bank and not invest it at all.
Care to tell us all exactly what he did to deserve punishment? I ask only because I think you don't personally know.
He was the CEO of a company that defrauded thousands of people?
Nice trick with that book though; it was written in response to the SOX laws which came about AFTER the Enron fiasco. So implying that this guy couldn't act morally because of the law is bogus.
after I figured they had enough blood, I would pick them off by the leg and let them fly away.
There's merit to what you say, as I became immune to poison ivy, likely from all the contact i had with it, but posion ivy won't give you a host of diseases if you come in contact with it, which a mosquito might.
Sure, if there are lots of humans around, they will go after the one they like, but in a pinch, they are still comming after you.
And you have proof of this?
No, actually it wont. If you're the only ice cream shop in town, I'll make do with vanilla. Similarly, if you're out walking alone in the woods, the mosquitoes are going to bite you even if you don't taste just the way they like.
More likely they'll go to another kind of animal which doesn't bother them. They are repelled for a reason; they probably believe there is some danger in going after the 'bad smelling' ones. Seems to work well for snunks.
First, a company has no right to exist, where as a person does.
Second, the telcos have been 'stealing' from us already. They got some major regulations removed, on the promise that they would deliver fiber connections to everyone's home. I'll be getting fiber to my home sometime next year, but thanks for a government entity, NOT a private one.
Finally, yes, there are certain instances were its ok for the government to take your house. One example is for the building of roads. The difference is that you get paid fair market value, since you built the house (or bought it) with your own money, not because government tax money was given to you as a subsidy.
Everyone points to CA for how 'de-regulation' failed (ignoring the fact that Enron was largely behind that, attempting to kill de-regulation. Its amazing that PA was able to do the same thing, and the state didn't collapse. You've been able to pick your electric provider for over 10 years now.
Adelphia is already gobbled up. Comcast is set to take over sometime this month.
Forutnately by next year, all of my city will have city provided fiber to the home, offering TV, phone and internet, for vastly cheaper than Adelphia / Comcast.
The only downside is that my section of the city is one of the last to get the rollout.
But by switching they neglect great deals like a free porche bundled with purchase of a million licenses. As long as OSS can't give out free porches as bonus to government-funded purchases, we're on a lost position.
I'm assuming you have proof to back up this accusation.
Sure, so the schools with the more wealthy simply exceed standards to the point that they either become standards (and lower income schools fail due to failure to meet new 'standards') and the children that attend them are disadvantaged by simply meeting the 'standard'.
Listen, the goal is that everyone has a minimum set of knowledge needed to function in our society. The lower income schools MUST meet this standard, so if the bar is raised, than the price to run that school goes up, which may mean more people need educational loans. But there's no reason to think that the 'standard' would continually be pushed up unless that's what society really needs from EVERYONE.
So is your argument now that we should send EVERYONE to college (and force EVERYONE to pay for it, via taxes), because college grads now have skills at a 'higher' standard than those that don't? Aren't people that ONLY graduate HS at a disadvantge in the job market today? You don't seem to have a problem with that, do you?
Also, there's nothing stopping someone from sending their kid to a school further away, and paying the higher bill. You do realize today that the current system has exactly the problems you describe, right? So you say not to adopt my solution, because it doesn't fix EVERY problem? Sorry, I don't think these are great reasons to keep the system as is.
The hiked prices at the "Higher End(tm)" schools then force parents with lower income to place their children in "those" schools. Other side of the tracks, indeed.
Again, you realize that the current system (everyone pays) has this exact same problem, right? So its not a reason to continue forcing everyone to pay.
Because some kid reported it (who seemed to not find it funny), the school had to act, even if to talk to the kid and tell him to take it down.
No, the school didn't have to do anything except say, 'ok, thanks.' The student still enjoys free speech, because the icon wasn't a threat, since it was never meant to be seen by the teacher. Intention is key here.
Then there is context; if this kid is a straight A student, who is friends with all the teachers and is a known joker..ok, maybe they wouldn't do anything.. if this kid is someone who frequently clashes with the said teacher and has had brushes with the law, the joke becomes less funny to the school and to the teacher; or maybe there's a policy of automatic suspension for any issued death threat.
It doesn't seem he ever intended for the icon to be seen by the teacher. Its therefore hard to argue that the kid was going to do anything more, so the fact that he may be "good or bad" outside of school is irrelevent. Just because he may have been arrested for stealing doesn't mean he'll murder someone. The school's policy is irrelevent too, since, again, it seems clear the student never intended for the icon to be seen by the teacher. I don't think you can say that you were threatened by someone if they never delieved the threatening message.
Its funny how you say this is less of a joke, and more of an act of anger
It could just be a totally unprovoked joke. I have no idea. It seems likely that the student was angry at the time he made the icon, but thats just a guess on my part. He may not have been angry at all.
there might not be any evidence that the kid wishes pursue this further, but the school are not mind-readers - they will cover their asses legally.
But that's exactly what the school is claiming to be; mind readers. They are punishing a student for making a threat, when they don't really know what he was thinking at all. This 'CYA legally' bullshit is just that, bullshit.
They just can't ignore this now that another student complained about it. Chances are they had to fill out forms pertaining to this incident because of the nature of this complaint, if the kid did do something, police would have come back to them and said "look, on this day he threatened this teacher and you did nothing, why not?"
They could say that they believed the kid was just expressing frustration, and didn't think it was a threat at all. Its amazing how many people with the benefit of hindsight claim that people should have acted differently. To me such claims are pointless.
all of sudden its the administration's asses that are on the line...hell they might get sued by the union or the teacher's family for millions of dollars. This is an unlikely scenario, but schools have learned to do everything by the book.
Unfortunatly this is a side effect of our culture today, where nobody is really responsible anymore. If a kid shoots someone, its the kids fault, end of story. By blaming the administrators, you remove some of the responsibility from the person that commited a crime. Schools haven't learned to do everything by the book; they have learned to punish anyone that doesn't subscribe to the group think being instilled in children today. Any differing views are simply not tolerated.
I suppose death threats, death lists and any other "art" can be a way for kids to express themselves (what kind of kid expresses himself with a death threat?), but he better keep it private if he doesn't want to suffer the consequences.
Your logic problem is that you're starting with the basis that the icon was a death threat; since the icon wasn't meant to be seen by the teacher, it can't be a threat. Much art is offensive to some people; that doesn't make it an invalid way to express one's self, or that it shouldn't be allowed to have been created. Your line of thinking tells people (kids in this case) that they need to fear being different than everyone else, and that it is wrong not to conform. Pretty chilling lines of reasoning, considering we are supposed to be a country that emphasizes individuality.
Slashdot Mirror
Then maybe you should just live in a cave and have no contact with society.
Likely be design, since IIRC, all the dns servers were like this. It could even be back in arpa net days.
The reason I say its likely is because computers were slower then, and doing case insenstive comparisons is more expensive cpu-wise than case sensitive.
If you hate your peers so much, perhaps you should find another field to work in.
Bull. There's nothing that's impossible to do on Windows. Nor are you any good judge, since you seem adverse to learning newer technologies. I bet building a website on Asp.Net is much easier than one on PHP.
Early DNS server were case senstive (so MAIL.host.com wasn't the same as mail.host.com).
('course, at $7, is it really worth fighting for it?)
Its worth fighting for. Why should you accept substandard crap service from a business?
Bullshit (that anyone brought it on themselves). This guy (and his helpers) lied, and as a result people lost their retirement. It was a direct result of the fraud that the people lost out.
Should we now assume every business is lying? Then the logical conclusion is to stuff your money into a bank and not invest it at all.
Um, why should anyone show him any respect? Would you say the same for, say, leaders of the Axis powers?
Care to tell us all exactly what he did to deserve punishment? I ask only because I think you don't personally know.
He was the CEO of a company that defrauded thousands of people?
Nice trick with that book though; it was written in response to the SOX laws which came about AFTER the Enron fiasco. So implying that this guy couldn't act morally because of the law is bogus.
Yeah, i'm sure his death makes the wiping of your retirement savings easier to deal with...
after I figured they had enough blood, I would pick them off by the leg and let them fly away.
There's merit to what you say, as I became immune to poison ivy, likely from all the contact i had with it, but posion ivy won't give you a host of diseases if you come in contact with it, which a mosquito might.
Sure, if there are lots of humans around, they will go after the one they like, but in a pinch, they are still comming after you.
And you have proof of this?
No, actually it wont. If you're the only ice cream shop in town, I'll make do with vanilla. Similarly, if you're out walking alone in the woods, the mosquitoes are going to bite you even if you don't taste just the way they like.
More likely they'll go to another kind of animal which doesn't bother them. They are repelled for a reason; they probably believe there is some danger in going after the 'bad smelling' ones. Seems to work well for snunks.
First, a company has no right to exist, where as a person does.
Second, the telcos have been 'stealing' from us already. They got some major regulations removed, on the promise that they would deliver fiber connections to everyone's home. I'll be getting fiber to my home sometime next year, but thanks for a government entity, NOT a private one.
Finally, yes, there are certain instances were its ok for the government to take your house. One example is for the building of roads. The difference is that you get paid fair market value, since you built the house (or bought it) with your own money, not because government tax money was given to you as a subsidy.
Any other stupid questions?
Everyone points to CA for how 'de-regulation' failed (ignoring the fact that Enron was largely behind that, attempting to kill de-regulation. Its amazing that PA was able to do the same thing, and the state didn't collapse. You've been able to pick your electric provider for over 10 years now.
No, because in 1970, your phone bill was about $25 / month. Factoring for inflation, that would be a little over $100 / month today.
I propose the government take them and allow multiple companies to provide services over those lines.
Adelphia is already gobbled up. Comcast is set to take over sometime this month.
Forutnately by next year, all of my city will have city provided fiber to the home, offering TV, phone and internet, for vastly cheaper than Adelphia / Comcast.
The only downside is that my section of the city is one of the last to get the rollout.
Its a shame that I actually read that article and no where does it say that Porsches are being given out for those that chose MS for thier school.
Sci-Fi has already had a movie about mosquetos.
Well, assuming what you're saying is true, what teeth does the WTO have to actually collect the fine? I'd wager 'none.'
But by switching they neglect great deals like a free porche bundled with purchase of a million licenses.
As long as OSS can't give out free porches as bonus to government-funded purchases, we're on a lost position.
I'm assuming you have proof to back up this accusation.
Sure, so the schools with the more wealthy simply exceed standards to the point that they either become standards (and lower income schools fail due to failure to meet new 'standards') and the children that attend them are disadvantaged by simply meeting the 'standard'.
Listen, the goal is that everyone has a minimum set of knowledge needed to function in our society. The lower income schools MUST meet this standard, so if the bar is raised, than the price to run that school goes up, which may mean more people need educational loans. But there's no reason to think that the 'standard' would continually be pushed up unless that's what society really needs from EVERYONE.
So is your argument now that we should send EVERYONE to college (and force EVERYONE to pay for it, via taxes), because college grads now have skills at a 'higher' standard than those that don't? Aren't people that ONLY graduate HS at a disadvantge in the job market today? You don't seem to have a problem with that, do you?
Also, there's nothing stopping someone from sending their kid to a school further away, and paying the higher bill. You do realize today that the current system has exactly the problems you describe, right? So you say not to adopt my solution, because it doesn't fix EVERY problem? Sorry, I don't think these are great reasons to keep the system as is.
The hiked prices at the "Higher End(tm)" schools then force parents with lower income to place their children in "those" schools. Other side of the tracks, indeed.
Again, you realize that the current system (everyone pays) has this exact same problem, right? So its not a reason to continue forcing everyone to pay.
I consider the Bible a work of fiction. Its been a long while, but I don't recall the bible spelling out how the 'church' should be structured either.
They could always pull a 'nuclear' option. Pull out of Europe completely, and on their way out, tell everyone that their licenses are now invalid.
Because some kid reported it (who seemed to not find it funny), the school had to act, even if to talk to the kid and tell him to take it down.
No, the school didn't have to do anything except say, 'ok, thanks.' The student still enjoys free speech, because the icon wasn't a threat, since it was never meant to be seen by the teacher. Intention is key here.
Then there is context; if this kid is a straight A student, who is friends with all the teachers and is a known joker..ok, maybe they wouldn't do anything.. if this kid is someone who frequently clashes with the said teacher and has had brushes with the law, the joke becomes less funny to the school and to the teacher; or maybe there's a policy of automatic suspension for any issued death threat.
It doesn't seem he ever intended for the icon to be seen by the teacher. Its therefore hard to argue that the kid was going to do anything more, so the fact that he may be "good or bad" outside of school is irrelevent. Just because he may have been arrested for stealing doesn't mean he'll murder someone. The school's policy is irrelevent too, since, again, it seems clear the student never intended for the icon to be seen by the teacher. I don't think you can say that you were threatened by someone if they never delieved the threatening message.
Its funny how you say this is less of a joke, and more of an act of anger
It could just be a totally unprovoked joke. I have no idea. It seems likely that the student was angry at the time he made the icon, but thats just a guess on my part. He may not have been angry at all.
there might not be any evidence that the kid wishes pursue this further, but the school are not mind-readers - they will cover their asses legally.
But that's exactly what the school is claiming to be; mind readers. They are punishing a student for making a threat, when they don't really know what he was thinking at all. This 'CYA legally' bullshit is just that, bullshit.
They just can't ignore this now that another student complained about it. Chances are they had to fill out forms pertaining to this incident because of the nature of this complaint, if the kid did do something, police would have come back to them and said "look, on this day he threatened this teacher and you did nothing, why not?"
They could say that they believed the kid was just expressing frustration, and didn't think it was a threat at all. Its amazing how many people with the benefit of hindsight claim that people should have acted differently. To me such claims are pointless.
all of sudden its the administration's asses that are on the line...hell they might get sued by the union or the teacher's family for millions of dollars. This is an unlikely scenario, but schools have learned to do everything by the book.
Unfortunatly this is a side effect of our culture today, where nobody is really responsible anymore. If a kid shoots someone, its the kids fault, end of story. By blaming the administrators, you remove some of the responsibility from the person that commited a crime. Schools haven't learned to do everything by the book; they have learned to punish anyone that doesn't subscribe to the group think being instilled in children today. Any differing views are simply not tolerated.
I suppose death threats, death lists and any other "art" can be a way for kids to express themselves (what kind of kid expresses himself with a death threat?), but he better keep it private if he doesn't want to suffer the consequences.
Your logic problem is that you're starting with the basis that the icon was a death threat; since the icon wasn't meant to be seen by the teacher, it can't be a threat. Much art is offensive to some people; that doesn't make it an invalid way to express one's self, or that it shouldn't be allowed to have been created. Your line of thinking tells people (kids in this case) that they need to fear being different than everyone else, and that it is wrong not to conform. Pretty chilling lines of reasoning, considering we are supposed to be a country that emphasizes individuality.