Reading a blog entry does not tell you anything about how someone conducts himself on the job.
It does if the blog entry is all about how he conducts himself on the job - which this one clearly is. You need to think a little harder before making categorical statements like that.
Actually, it doesn't. It just tells you what he says about how he conducts himself on the job. Nothing you read from anyone ever tells you what happened; it simply tells you what the writer believes happened, or wants to make you believe happened. That applies to BLOGs, the press, respected histories, and textbooks. Your job as reader is to determine for yourself the likely validity of what you read; your skill at doing so determines to a great extent what you believe about the world.
>Ah, but have you not read the EULA? Or are those illegal, too?
Depends on whats in them.
Yes, it does. Are you suggesting that Apple's EULAs are illegal? Or suggesting that they should be illegal? Or hoping that France will make them illegal in France? Could you be a little more specific about what you believe is the case, and what you believe should be the case, and your reasons for that belief?
To which I just informed you on that consumer sale laws typically limit and dissallow certain terms when you sell something.
Ah, but have you not read the EULA? Or are those illegal, too?
The idea that rights come from laws is not generally accepted in this country, at least. Most people would be very reluctant to concede that they have rights only because they are granted them by laws.
You obviously have never heared about consumer sales laws which typically DO tell what terms are allowed and what terms are not allowed.
Actually, I have "heared" about such things. There is, however, a difference between violation of a law and infringement of rights, and of course you understand that. If Apple is in violation of a law, then let them suffer the appropriate consequences. Which laws do you believe they violate? And if you believe that they do in fact infringe upon rights, then which rights?
...governments should be supporting people's rights on this.
Exactly which "people's rights" did you have in mind? You have no inherent right to anything which belongs to anyone else, nor any inherent right to decide on what terms they are allowed to provide it to you, should they so choose. So which "rights" do you think should be supported?
Indeed you did. That's at least one thing you have right. Of course no one has any obligation whatsoever to comply with anything you say.
I don't need to provide you with a Quote form the constitution I have provided you with several (repeatably I might add once again) examples as well as pointed to a current I repeat current court case (which this article is about as I have told you) that shows you are wrong.
This is obviously a waste of both our time. You are clearly too dense to understand what either of us is saying. "Examples" don't cut it. I want specifics. Legal specifics. If you don't have them, you have nothing. You obviously can continue to believe whatever you like, but I will tell you with no doubt whatsoever that the Constitution says what I have quoted to you. Unless you can quote, and I mean quote verbatim, something which contradicts that then you have nothing. Telling me about articles does nothing for you unless those articles happen to be by legal scholars, not journalists.
I won't even bother to respond to you again with your idiotic ranting fantasies.
That is an outcome greatly to be desired. If you are going to continue this despite everything, will you please at least learn to spell and to construct a proper sentence? That also would be greatly appreciated.
But you haven't shown anything but your interpritations of how you think the constitution reads with nothing at all in any way shape or form to back up that claim.
Actually I have quoted the Constitution verbatim, or rather the First Amendment thereto. It says what it says. If you believe that it says something else, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate that. Provide me with either:
a) a quotation from the Constitution or its amendements, or
b) a cited quotation from a reputable source (not your interpretation of what the newspapers say, a reputable legal authority)
which supports your position and you will have done something more than rant. If you can do neither of the above, then you have nothing to talk about. If you don't know what "quotation" means, there a number of online sources which can provide you with a meaning.
I really think were done here nice debating this with you.
Thank God! You haven't been debating. You've been ranting. I asked you to quote any line in the Constitution or amendments which supports anything you've said and you haven't. You can't because it isn't there. Your imagination doesn't constitute a source. As I suggested before, you can ask anyone you like who has any knowledge (not supposition) of the subject. A first-year law student should be able to put you straight.
I assume from your use of the language that you are a non-native speaker which may excuse part of your nonsense, but not all of it.
If it was as you say then it would be defined in the first ammendment as such that these laws only apply in the case of government or congress but it doesn't it says nothing of the sort.
It is indeed as I say. The First Amendment means exactly what it says and nothing more: "Congress shall make no law...". You are free to search the Constitution and its amendments to your heart's content to find anything more that would support your views. It isn't there. Go ahead. Look. It's not a long document, it won't take a great deal of your time. Anything else you maybe been led to believe is incorrect. If, as appears to be the case, you don't believe that, then you may research it a bit and satisfy your curiosity. But don't come back to me and tell me that something is in the Constitution unless you quote it to me, please.
Now if you could show me where in the constitution it says that free speech only applies when the government or congress is involved then i could see your argument.
You have it backwards my friend. The only freedom of speech that you are granted by the Constitution is that in the First Amendment. That's it. There is no more. That constitutes the whole of your Constitutional freedom of speech. Your state Constitution may (or may not) grant you other freedom of speech, but that would apply only in that state. The "Freedoms" that people throw around so freely are not as free as most people believe. The only thing which the Constitution does is protect you from the Federal Government. That's it. After that, you're on your own.
I should have made clear that I was speaking only of solutions for Intel Mac. The current VPC doesn't run at all, but there may be one down the road which does and that's what I was referring to; if there should be such a beast I would expect its performance to be acceptable. There is at least one virtualization solution (Parallels) available now in beta, I believe. There are stories that VMWare is working on an OS X version. And the DarWine crowd has yet to show us what they have in mind.
I suspect that once the virtualization software has matured a bit the only catch will be a requirement for lots of memory, and that provided the memory is there performance should be very close to native performance on comparable hardware.
Whenever I see a writer say about selling OSX for non-Mac hardware, "I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration," I immediately have grave doubts about his perspicacity. It makes anything else he has to say less interesting.
That said, I would agree that virtualization -- either from Apple or a third party, perhaps even VirtualPC from Microsoft -- will be a far more useful thing. But it's coming, so why the big deal?
This concern here (and what apparently brought in the EFF) was that if this had been a print publication, it would have been expected that the reporter would have been covered by first amendment rights.
The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It specifically bars Congress from doing certain things, and that's all it does. First amendment rights are the right not to have Congress do those things. The First Amendment does not protect anyone from any other consequences of their acts. Anything else you may have heard is wrong. Now how does that apply here, pray tell?
Ah, for the good old days when systems shipped with 'fsdb'...
Re:Sudo is only useful when there are lots of admi
on
Sudo vs. Root
·
· Score: 1
One thing I've done on most UNIX-like systems, including MacOS X, is to run a wild-card command first with 'ls' to see what files will really be affected, then edit the command to change the 'ls' to whatever it is I want to do, e.g., 'rm'.
For example:
$ ls *.pl anna.pl boris.pl vladimir.pl grigorij.pl
Then as soon as I've confirmed that those are indeed the files on which I wish to act, ^P (or esc-k, or whatever) to retrieve the command, edit the 'ls' to 'rm' and go. Obviously, you can edit other parts of the command as well, but the important thing is never to edit the wildcard elements or attempt to re-type the command instead of editing. Re-typing can have errors; using the already used wildcard ensures that you'll get the results you want.
What the article mentions is not really a big problem, since that is more or less what would happen if someone guessed the root password (then they could tamper with anything, including the logs).
Not completely true, at least on BSD-ish systems properly configured. If you set the sappnd or schg flags on a file only root can change the file and even root can only append to the file (in the case of the sappnd flag). Since those flags can only be reset in single-user level, that greatly complicates the problem of modifying logs after an intrusion is the sappnd flag is set on them. And yes, these flags do work on OS X although I don't know anyone who uses them routinely.
$ ls -lo system.log -rw-r----- 1 root admin sappnd 1119 Mar 21 14:03 system.log
Even root cannot modify the existing contents of this file, only append to it, without rebooting into single-user mode.
Actually, yes. It is. You are free, however, to take action against those who would attempt to murder you, or members of your like-minded community. And if your value system permits you to do so, that could include lethal action. That is not the same as imposing your values on the others; simply defending your own against theirs.
If there were a society which included murdering each other in their list of acceptable entertainments, that would be their business as long as they didn't try to include you in their group (which would, of course, be attempting to impose their moral values on you).
>And the real answer is that no one should impose their value system on anyone else. Ever. Under any circumstances.
and, of course, by telling us what we should never do you're not trying to impose _your_ value system on us at all, are you:)
Nope. Not at all. You're free to do as you like. And I'm free to believe as I will about you and act accordingly. Very simple, indeed. I impose nothing on you, and reserve the right to resist your imposing anything on me.
The real question is, should software developers impose their value system on end users or hardware manufacturers?
And the real answer is that no one should impose their value system on anyone else. Ever. Under any circumstances.
You can refuse to do business, or even associate, with those who do not accept your value system; and of course everyone else has the same right. Simple, really.
You can't staff a whole large application development project with the best gurus: there aren't enough out there in the world.
And why aren't there?
For the same reason there aren't enough really good NFL quarterbacks for every team to have one, despite the money that is spent in trying to find them.
People differ in ability in every field; the bell curve is real, and only the people who are at the high end of the curve can be considered one of "the best gurus". They will never constitute a large percentage of the group. Ever. Furthermore, there is usually a huge difference in performance between people who are in the top 10% of their field and those who are in the top 0.1% of their field. Most people would consider those in the top 10% as "the best gurus", but really it's only that tiny segment at the very top who deserve the appelation. Even then, you can expect a marked difference between those in the to 0.1% and those in the top 0.01%. Fact of life, folks.
First, the people who actually make the decisions just might have a slightly better idea of what research grants require funding than you do. Or are you up on the latest in protein folding and its relationship to auto-immune research?
Certainly possible. But who decides who has the better idea? Their peers? My peers? Who?
And second, would you, or Joe Sixpack, take that "refund" and actually fund any research? Or would it be much more likely that the only thing funded is a few more cases of beer and a larger flat-screen TV?
Isn't that their right? Shouldn't they be able to make their own decisions? Or is their some group favored with superior decison making ability which should be allowed to make their decisions for them? Who would decide the members of that group? On what basis? How good a job do you think they would do?
Well, if you take that as an axiom, we're never going to agree.
I guess I'll have to live with that.
With regard to your examples, I wouldn't be averse to eliminating public funding for them, at least without an overwhelming vote (> 90 %, which is of course impossible). If we all get refunds for programs with which we disagree, or never fund them in the first place, then we can use those resources to fund the programs with which we do agree. You spend on what you want, I spend on what I want. Sounds fair to me.
Unfortunately, there's no money in that for big business;...
My friend, there is money for big business in anything people are willing to pay for, and no money for those things they are not willing to pay for. You have a problem with other peoples' ideas of what is worth paying for. Unfortunately, you have no right to overrule them. It's a remarkably democratic system; people are allowed to vote with their dollars for their choices. And they acquired those dollars because other people voted for them with their dollars. That's the way it works.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that rights come from laws is not generally accepted in this country, at least. Most people would be very reluctant to concede that they have rights only because they are granted them by laws.
a) a quotation from the Constitution or its amendements, or
b) a cited quotation from a reputable source (not your interpretation of what the newspapers say, a reputable legal authority)
which supports your position and you will have done something more than rant. If you can do neither of the above, then you have nothing to talk about. If you don't know what "quotation" means, there a number of online sources which can provide you with a meaning.
I assume from your use of the language that you are a non-native speaker which may excuse part of your nonsense, but not all of it.
I suspect that once the virtualization software has matured a bit the only catch will be a requirement for lots of memory, and that provided the memory is there performance should be very close to native performance on comparable hardware.
That said, I would agree that virtualization -- either from Apple or a third party, perhaps even VirtualPC from Microsoft -- will be a far more useful thing. But it's coming, so why the big deal?
Ah, for the good old days when systems shipped with 'fsdb'...
For example:
Then as soon as I've confirmed that those are indeed the files on which I wish to act, ^P (or esc-k, or whatever) to retrieve the command, edit the 'ls' to 'rm' and go. Obviously, you can edit other parts of the command as well, but the important thing is never to edit the wildcard elements or attempt to re-type the command instead of editing. Re-typing can have errors; using the already used wildcard ensures that you'll get the results you want.Certainly, but don't complain that you are left out. You are doing it by choice.
If there were a society which included murdering each other in their list of acceptable entertainments, that would be their business as long as they didn't try to include you in their group (which would, of course, be attempting to impose their moral values on you).
Actions have consequences.
You can refuse to do business, or even associate, with those who do not accept your value system; and of course everyone else has the same right. Simple, really.
People differ in ability in every field; the bell curve is real, and only the people who are at the high end of the curve can be considered one of "the best gurus". They will never constitute a large percentage of the group. Ever. Furthermore, there is usually a huge difference in performance between people who are in the top 10% of their field and those who are in the top 0.1% of their field. Most people would consider those in the top 10% as "the best gurus", but really it's only that tiny segment at the very top who deserve the appelation. Even then, you can expect a marked difference between those in the to 0.1% and those in the top 0.01%. Fact of life, folks.
You didn't tell me how good a job you think they would do. Did you forget?
Certainly possible. But who decides who has the better idea? Their peers? My peers? Who?
And second, would you, or Joe Sixpack, take that "refund" and actually fund any research? Or would it be much more likely that the only thing funded is a few more cases of beer and a larger flat-screen TV?
Isn't that their right? Shouldn't they be able to make their own decisions? Or is their some group favored with superior decison making ability which should be allowed to make their decisions for them? Who would decide the members of that group? On what basis? How good a job do you think they would do?
With regard to your examples, I wouldn't be averse to eliminating public funding for them, at least without an overwhelming vote (> 90 %, which is of course impossible). If we all get refunds for programs with which we disagree, or never fund them in the first place, then we can use those resources to fund the programs with which we do agree. You spend on what you want, I spend on what I want. Sounds fair to me.