The US shouldn't be involved except to be moderators. Unfortnatly both sides in that conflict are acting like spoiled children. They don't want to share; they could easily both live there fine, but no they both want it all to themselves. Bah...i saw we nuke the whole area off the earth, then there will be nothing left to fight over.
Oh win95 had quite a nice showstopper in it. Try running it on an amd k6-2 400 or above, and you'll see it. To fix it, just run this neat little windows program. problem is, you can't load windows b/c of the problem! I've had to hack it to get it to only blue screen then be able to install the patch, but most people wouldn't have been able to do that. The problem in this redhat program is really kinda trival. Its something most every redhat user can live without. And it will not prevent you from booting the OS to fix it. I do fault them for having it turned on by default, but MS is guilty of that as well.
I've been using RH since 5.2, and i haven't seen any of these great problems everyone's been talking about. I haven't had any odd problems, and the installation i thought was getting better (6.2 installed on a laptop that no earlier version would). I haven't installed 7.0 yet, but it seems a wait and see attitude is deserived. I'll probably goto 7.1 when thats out. I keep my system updated, but not b/c i have wierd problems, just b/c i like to keep everything up to date.
You could do that, yes. You'd be an idiot for refusing income like that, but i'm sure after awhile your paper would be out of buinsess. While i don't have a say in YOUR paper, i could start my own and say my opinion, and if its about how your paper sucks b/c you have no objectivity, well i guess you'd have to live with that. You can't make me stop.
I've had a manager complain thati didn't finish my project quick enough, then when i was done, wanted to see what i had spent all my time doing. She didn't know how big the system was, nor did she even know what it did. She had a vague idea, that was half wrong. Why is it too much to ask that a manager know the work he/she is managing? Maybe someone managing a programming team should know how to program, so that they can form more realistic evaluations, and know how ot properly handle the task.
yes it does. Private individuals cannot squash your free speech rights. Nor can buinsesses. I find it very hard to believe that you would think that the framers thought the only threat to freedom is from the gov't. I very much doubt they were that short sighted.
I'm sure they probably will have your SSN. I wouldn't exactly say cookies are harmless, being that they are how must of your online privacy goes away, and how most online tracking is done. I'm sure this will increase the amount of spam people get too.
Well, for one, it takes more time for me to do that then to start fresh. Secondly, a PC without an OS SHOULD be cheaper then buying one with windows. Oddly enough, they still seem to charge you for windows even if you don't get it...hmm.
It almost sounds like if the OEM doesn't install an OS, MS thinks thats encouraging pirating an OS. I wonder if they will try and sue based on that. It would be interesting. Its almost like car makers sueing hardware stores for selling crowbars. As someone else pointed out, its more likly the customer already has a copy of windows, and will not be using the old PC anymore, or simply wants to install an OS not offered by the OEM. I wonder how many companies will actually believe this.
Well do you advertise unlimited internet access? If so, he's entitiled to use all the bandwidth he wants. It sounds more like the ISP you work for needs to implement bandwidth throttling per user. But if you don't, and you didn't state anywhere then he has the right to use as much as he wants. I don't recall in my isp contract them saying 'now try not to hog it all.' Actually i know my ISP prevents this.
Ah, i got the impression you were trying to defend that thinking. I do have to agree with you; its the best we have, for now. I knew about what happened in WW2...i find it ironic that we always blast Germany for having done what it did, yet we were along the same path, and you never hear about it(usually).
Doesn't matter what the constitution said. Rights are not granted by a piece of paper. That document does try to point out and leave no doubt about some of the most important ones, but with or without the constition, people have rights. You are sighting legal precedents for some gross violation of rights. You might as well argue that we should still have slavery. There is, after all, legal precedent. In the constition it said slavery was allowed, and it was upheld for quite a while if i recall. Obviously the supreme court erred on that, and other things. First amendment rights are supposed to be guarantees. Thats why they were deemed important enough to be very specific and clear about. What are they otherwise, suggestions? Please don't say that something was upheld in court means that it is right. I can think of countless things upheld by law that are just plain wrong. I hope you realize that something things transend the law, rights being one of them.
What in that view prevents cooperation? Who said it was an ego trip? You seem to think that b/c everyone has the right to do as they please, that they cannot work together or help one another. The statement is hardly an ego trip; in fact it orders that you be considerate of others. Everything i do does not interfere with someone else. Did my choice to eat pizza last night interfere at all with anything you wanted to do? Do you think it stopped anyone else from doing what they want? Did my choice to relax yesterday keep anyone from doing what they want?
Well perhaps those people shouldn't have kids then. If they can't take the responsibility to do what a parent should, they shouldn't be one. Part of the responsibility is knowing where your kid is and what they are doing. You seem to be the ninny. It IS about lazy parents. I know you can't be w/them 100% of the time, but what disgusts me is the other things i see parents doing (or more correctly, not). They come home and sit thier kids down in front of the tv, or the radio, or video games, or a computer, so the kids can be out of their hair. Society as a whole has decided we will raise citizens of high moral standards? What fucking dream world are you living in? You defend what parents are doing now, saying you want high morals, yet the morals of this country have been declining for decades. The morals of the generation above me seems to be 'anything to make a buck.' I pray to god that my kids don't inherit the 'morals' of this society. This society is twisted and sick.
well, had you read the article, you would have noted that using yahoo mail to conduct personal email should be encouraged to limit liability if that person is sending sexist/racist, or bad taste emails. This 'waste of time browsing or chatting' is probably a well needed break. Where i work it is actually encouraged to do this b/c it allows us to get back to work more quickly if we are having a mind block or are doing something tedious. Would you rather someone browse the web for 10minutes or stare blankly at the screen for 20? You incorrectly assume that people only surf for porn. I searched the web b/c i wanted to set something up on my network at home. I proably would not have been able to do it with out spending just a little time at work researching it. It payed off when i overheard they needed pretty much the same thing done there. I was able to implement it much faster b/c i already had the expenience from at home. I worked for an company that was heavily into montoring and control; the turnover rate is around 50%. Thats not the only reason, but its just one more of many. Buinesses like your need to wake up and realize that people are not machines, and cannot concentrate hours on end at ONE task. Minds wear down. You may not notice it in your job, since i'm sure each task you have usually does not last more then a few hours, and even then must be broken up so you can deal with other things. But thats not how it is with most jobs. Just as the article states, people also have a life, they have personal buinsess to attend to. How are they to get anything down if most of the day they are locked up, especially if the buinsess is discussing something with another buinsess, only open M-F, 8-5. Its difficult, to say the least. My company respects the needs of its employees, and gives them a pretty large leaway in what is acceptable to take care/do of at work. In return, each employee pours their heart and soul into the company, and genuenly wants the company to succeed .
Perhaps you don't fully understand what rights are. Your statement that they can be taken away is proof of that. I wouldn't use the arguement that it is a pretty normal mindset. So what? Most people are too stupid or short sighted to understand the ramifications of thier actions. To quote something my mom said to me growing up 'If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?' The right to free speech, to worship as you please, to a buy video game, are just a small piece of a whole. What it boils down to is that you have the right to do whatever you please, so long as you do not interfere with another. Unrealistic? Doubtful. More likely too lazy, selfish, or beaten.
I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this, but that's not the same thing. Certain drugs can cause immediate mental breakdown, and cause a danger to others. There is a case to made that certain drugs should be illegal.
Well, one might argue that if i own a gun, i could go and kill someone with it. Does that mean i should lose that right? B/c of a possiblity? Instead of taking away the gun, it would make more sense to punish me for shooting someone with it. So i think the same would apply to the drugs. The mental break downs you talk of usually don't lead to the one thats 'high' attacking someone else; as far as i know it usually ends up with that person dying.
Reference? As far as I know, that is not illegal, unless you're using them to spy on others (like, recording movies of having sex with someone, and then selling the movie).
Citizens are not allow to own anything that could be used for survallence. This topic also came up in a privacy and security class i took last year. The professor is known for doing alot of research for his class, and it came up in a discussion of workplace monitoring. What was pefectly legal, and almost required was that employers monitor thier employees, and may use hidden cameras etc. I asked if it was legal to do that at home b/c i had a suspection about it, and he said it was not. My father looked into this b/c he wants to mount a camera outside our house (to catch whoever keep smashing our mailbox). He was told that would be ok, but that he could not monitor inside his house. I don't know the reasoning behind any of it, except that it probably has to do with the law prohibiting citizens from owning hidden cameras and the like.
Well, first of all, that's not at the state or federal level, as I specified. Yes, there are going to be wacky local laws, but 1) they are not enforced, and 2) if they were, they would be struck down by higher courts.
Well, i guess i missed where you specified that. But my point holds, it just effects a smaller number of people. I'm not so sure it would be struck down either, if local decensy laws are strict enough. The supreme court gave that authority to the local gov'ts. If pictures of a certain act are illegal, i doubt doing it would be.
Banning stuff in your own home never has and never will be a serious threat in the USA.
The number of laws forbidding what you can and cannot do in your own home is mind boggling. You cannot take certain drugs, you cannot install hidden cameras (as a security system), viewing certain material is not allowed, and in some places certain activities with your spouce are not legal. Do a little research, its amazing what you aren't allowed to do in your own home.
And why should they? What if i don't care that my kid buys an M rated game? What if its ok to me that my kid seens an R rated movie? Shouldn't that be my choice? Why should i be inconvienced b/c of a few lazy parents that want the gov't to raise thier kids? Its the parents responsibility to watch what their kids are doing, not the theaters.
The point of that last like, imho, is that we should realize that government saying you have to be 18 or older to buy a game is a much more reasonable thing than alot of people think.
No, i don't think thats reasonable at all. Basically you're saying kids don't have any (or very little) rights. Rights are supposed to be something that cannot be taken away, no matter what. If you start saying you can take away rights from groups of people b/c of certain requirements, you get into a very scary mindset. Should rights only be had by people of certain age, or how about certain IQ. A certain skin color? A certain income? I think most people would agree that the last 3 would be considered discimination. why then is age an ok category? Just because someone is stupid, or is not wise, or does not have experience does not mean we can use that to take away their rights. they need to be educated yes, but placing restrictions on their rights is not a good idea.
Well, personally i think that if i signed a contract based on information they told me, i should be able to back out of it when i find they lied. But alas i'm sure they've covered that in the contract too. I agree, CS has gone downhill pretty quick. One of the few things i liked was the 24hr CS...but now i can only call during the day when i'm busy w/my own job...*sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
The US shouldn't be involved except to be moderators. Unfortnatly both sides in that conflict are acting like spoiled children. They don't want to share; they could easily both live there fine, but no they both want it all to themselves. Bah...i saw we nuke the whole area off the earth, then there will be nothing left to fight over.
Oh win95 had quite a nice showstopper in it. Try running it on an amd k6-2 400 or above, and you'll see it. To fix it, just run this neat little windows program. problem is, you can't load windows b/c of the problem! I've had to hack it to get it to only blue screen then be able to install the patch, but most people wouldn't have been able to do that. The problem in this redhat program is really kinda trival. Its something most every redhat user can live without. And it will not prevent you from booting the OS to fix it. I do fault them for having it turned on by default, but MS is guilty of that as well.
I've been using RH since 5.2, and i haven't seen any of these great problems everyone's been talking about. I haven't had any odd problems, and the installation i thought was getting better (6.2 installed on a laptop that no earlier version would). I haven't installed 7.0 yet, but it seems a wait and see attitude is deserived. I'll probably goto 7.1 when thats out. I keep my system updated, but not b/c i have wierd problems, just b/c i like to keep everything up to date.
You could do that, yes. You'd be an idiot for refusing income like that, but i'm sure after awhile your paper would be out of buinsess. While i don't have a say in YOUR paper, i could start my own and say my opinion, and if its about how your paper sucks b/c you have no objectivity, well i guess you'd have to live with that. You can't make me stop.
I've had a manager complain thati didn't finish my project quick enough, then when i was done, wanted to see what i had spent all my time doing. She didn't know how big the system was, nor did she even know what it did. She had a vague idea, that was half wrong. Why is it too much to ask that a manager know the work he/she is managing? Maybe someone managing a programming team should know how to program, so that they can form more realistic evaluations, and know how ot properly handle the task.
yes it does. Private individuals cannot squash your free speech rights. Nor can buinsesses. I find it very hard to believe that you would think that the framers thought the only threat to freedom is from the gov't. I very much doubt they were that short sighted.
I'm sure they probably will have your SSN. I wouldn't exactly say cookies are harmless, being that they are how must of your online privacy goes away, and how most online tracking is done. I'm sure this will increase the amount of spam people get too.
Unfortunatlly sometimes building a system yourself is more expensive then buying one already assembled, even at a computer show.
Well, for one, it takes more time for me to do that then to start fresh. Secondly, a PC without an OS SHOULD be cheaper then buying one with windows. Oddly enough, they still seem to charge you for windows even if you don't get it...hmm.
It almost sounds like if the OEM doesn't install an OS, MS thinks thats encouraging pirating an OS. I wonder if they will try and sue based on that. It would be interesting. Its almost like car makers sueing hardware stores for selling crowbars. As someone else pointed out, its more likly the customer already has a copy of windows, and will not be using the old PC anymore, or simply wants to install an OS not offered by the OEM. I wonder how many companies will actually believe this.
Well do you advertise unlimited internet access? If so, he's entitiled to use all the bandwidth he wants. It sounds more like the ISP you work for needs to implement bandwidth throttling per user. But if you don't, and you didn't state anywhere then he has the right to use as much as he wants. I don't recall in my isp contract them saying 'now try not to hog it all.' Actually i know my ISP prevents this.
Ah, i got the impression you were trying to defend that thinking. I do have to agree with you; its the best we have, for now. I knew about what happened in WW2...i find it ironic that we always blast Germany for having done what it did, yet we were along the same path, and you never hear about it(usually).
Doesn't matter what the constitution said. Rights are not granted by a piece of paper. That document does try to point out and leave no doubt about some of the most important ones, but with or without the constition, people have rights. You are sighting legal precedents for some gross violation of rights. You might as well argue that we should still have slavery. There is, after all, legal precedent. In the constition it said slavery was allowed, and it was upheld for quite a while if i recall. Obviously the supreme court erred on that, and other things. First amendment rights are supposed to be guarantees. Thats why they were deemed important enough to be very specific and clear about. What are they otherwise, suggestions? Please don't say that something was upheld in court means that it is right. I can think of countless things upheld by law that are just plain wrong. I hope you realize that something things transend the law, rights being one of them.
What in that view prevents cooperation? Who said it was an ego trip? You seem to think that b/c everyone has the right to do as they please, that they cannot work together or help one another. The statement is hardly an ego trip; in fact it orders that you be considerate of others. Everything i do does not interfere with someone else. Did my choice to eat pizza last night interfere at all with anything you wanted to do? Do you think it stopped anyone else from doing what they want? Did my choice to relax yesterday keep anyone from doing what they want?
Well perhaps those people shouldn't have kids then. If they can't take the responsibility to do what a parent should, they shouldn't be one. Part of the responsibility is knowing where your kid is and what they are doing. You seem to be the ninny. It IS about lazy parents. I know you can't be w/them 100% of the time, but what disgusts me is the other things i see parents doing (or more correctly, not). They come home and sit thier kids down in front of the tv, or the radio, or video games, or a computer, so the kids can be out of their hair. Society as a whole has decided we will raise citizens of high moral standards? What fucking dream world are you living in? You defend what parents are doing now, saying you want high morals, yet the morals of this country have been declining for decades. The morals of the generation above me seems to be 'anything to make a buck.' I pray to god that my kids don't inherit the 'morals' of this society. This society is twisted and sick.
well, had you read the article, you would have noted that using yahoo mail to conduct personal email should be encouraged to limit liability if that person is sending sexist/racist, or bad taste emails. This 'waste of time browsing or chatting' is probably a well needed break. Where i work it is actually encouraged to do this b/c it allows us to get back to work more quickly if we are having a mind block or are doing something tedious. Would you rather someone browse the web for 10minutes or stare blankly at the screen for 20? You incorrectly assume that people only surf for porn. I searched the web b/c i wanted to set something up on my network at home. I proably would not have been able to do it with out spending just a little time at work researching it. It payed off when i overheard they needed pretty much the same thing done there. I was able to implement it much faster b/c i already had the expenience from at home. I worked for an company that was heavily into montoring and control; the turnover rate is around 50%. Thats not the only reason, but its just one more of many. Buinesses like your need to wake up and realize that people are not machines, and cannot concentrate hours on end at ONE task. Minds wear down. You may not notice it in your job, since i'm sure each task you have usually does not last more then a few hours, and even then must be broken up so you can deal with other things. But thats not how it is with most jobs. Just as the article states, people also have a life, they have personal buinsess to attend to. How are they to get anything down if most of the day they are locked up, especially if the buinsess is discussing something with another buinsess, only open M-F, 8-5. Its difficult, to say the least. My company respects the needs of its employees, and gives them a pretty large leaway in what is acceptable to take care/do of at work. In return, each employee pours their heart and soul into the company, and genuenly wants the company to succeed .
As i said...why should i have additional burdens placed on me b/c other parents are being lazy?
Perhaps you don't fully understand what rights are. Your statement that they can be taken away is proof of that. I wouldn't use the arguement that it is a pretty normal mindset. So what? Most people are too stupid or short sighted to understand the ramifications of thier actions. To quote something my mom said to me growing up 'If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?' The right to free speech, to worship as you please, to a buy video game, are just a small piece of a whole. What it boils down to is that you have the right to do whatever you please, so long as you do not interfere with another. Unrealistic? Doubtful. More likely too lazy, selfish, or beaten.
I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this, but that's not the same thing. Certain drugs can cause immediate mental breakdown, and cause a danger to others. There is a case to made that certain drugs should be illegal.
Well, one might argue that if i own a gun, i could go and kill someone with it. Does that mean i should lose that right? B/c of a possiblity? Instead of taking away the gun, it would make more sense to punish me for shooting someone with it. So i think the same would apply to the drugs. The mental break downs you talk of usually don't lead to the one thats 'high' attacking someone else; as far as i know it usually ends up with that person dying.
Reference? As far as I know, that is not illegal, unless you're using them to spy on others (like, recording movies of having sex with someone, and then selling the movie).
Citizens are not allow to own anything that could be used for survallence. This topic also came up in a privacy and security class i took last year. The professor is known for doing alot of research for his class, and it came up in a discussion of workplace monitoring. What was pefectly legal, and almost required was that employers monitor thier employees, and may use hidden cameras etc. I asked if it was legal to do that at home b/c i had a suspection about it, and he said it was not. My father looked into this b/c he wants to mount a camera outside our house (to catch whoever keep smashing our mailbox). He was told that would be ok, but that he could not monitor inside his house. I don't know the reasoning behind any of it, except that it probably has to do with the law prohibiting citizens from owning hidden cameras and the like.
Well, first of all, that's not at the state or federal level, as I specified. Yes, there are going to be wacky local laws, but 1) they are not enforced, and 2) if they were, they would be struck down by higher courts.
Well, i guess i missed where you specified that. But my point holds, it just effects a smaller number of people. I'm not so sure it would be struck down either, if local decensy laws are strict enough. The supreme court gave that authority to the local gov'ts. If pictures of a certain act are illegal, i doubt doing it would be.
Why ban gambling? If some idiot wants to throw away his money like that, let him!
Banning stuff in your own home never has and never will be a serious threat in the USA.
The number of laws forbidding what you can and cannot do in your own home is mind boggling. You cannot take certain drugs, you cannot install hidden cameras (as a security system), viewing certain material is not allowed, and in some places certain activities with your spouce are not legal. Do a little research, its amazing what you aren't allowed to do in your own home.
And why should they? What if i don't care that my kid buys an M rated game? What if its ok to me that my kid seens an R rated movie? Shouldn't that be my choice? Why should i be inconvienced b/c of a few lazy parents that want the gov't to raise thier kids? Its the parents responsibility to watch what their kids are doing, not the theaters.
The point of that last like, imho, is that we should realize that government saying you have to be 18 or older to buy a game is a much more reasonable thing than alot of people think.
No, i don't think thats reasonable at all. Basically you're saying kids don't have any (or very little) rights. Rights are supposed to be something that cannot be taken away, no matter what. If you start saying you can take away rights from groups of people b/c of certain requirements, you get into a very scary mindset. Should rights only be had by people of certain age, or how about certain IQ. A certain skin color? A certain income? I think most people would agree that the last 3 would be considered discimination. why then is age an ok category? Just because someone is stupid, or is not wise, or does not have experience does not mean we can use that to take away their rights. they need to be educated yes, but placing restrictions on their rights is not a good idea.
Well, personally i think that if i signed a contract based on information they told me, i should be able to back out of it when i find they lied. But alas i'm sure they've covered that in the contract too. I agree, CS has gone downhill pretty quick. One of the few things i liked was the 24hr CS...but now i can only call during the day when i'm busy w/my own job...*sigh*
Well isn't using the knowledge at the job i get after i graduate using the material for financial gain?