"Lenin was one such dissident in 1900's, and see what he did when he got the power... examples are plentiful. "
Lenin wasn't all that bad a leader. It was Stalin who destroyed the country. Many of the atrocities that Stalin was responsible for, are attributed to Lenin. To be sure, life was horrible under Lenin, but that was largely because the country was a disaster as a result of the revolution and also still suffering from after effects of the horrible misrule by Nicholas.
Don't make the mistake of confusing the problems of the Civil War with Lenin's rule. He didn't cause it, couldn't stop it, and was making economic progress until he died in 1924.
It was Stalin, with his ridiculous 5 year plans, where farmers literally starved to death by the millions, and factory workers were faced with the choice to work to death or die in a concentration camp. The ruin that Stalin wrought on Russia is truly more severe than what Hitler did to Germany. The difference is that Stalin actually brought Russia into the industrial age, eventually. Nobody came to the rescue of the 15 million that died as a direct consequence of Stalin's rule. He was treated as a god by his followers, and his enemies were silenced by fear.
Compared to Stalin, Lenin was soft. Stalin worked very hard to literally rewrite history, though, and so the understanding of Russian history is quite difficult. It's a pity, because if Lenin had lived just a few more years, Russia might have recovered, and the world would be a different place today (for better or worse.)
On a tangent, does anyone have the photo of the old Joseph Stalin posing with the young Sadaam Hussein?
The very existence of a US Navy presence in Guantanamo Bay Cuba is quite extraordinary, and not universally accepted as lawful. It is actually quite a serious issue to the Cuban government, which does not recognized the occupation, but tolerates it because of the obvious consequences that a challenge to the US would bring.
To me, it's extremely strange that these prisoners are being held within the borders of a communist nation which has been declared an enemy by the current US administration. If these people escape, they escape within a country that is likely to be sympathetic to them.
Why did they pick Cuba for this purpose? I can understand them not taking the prisoners to the US, but, at a minimum, a nation that was a member of the "coalition" would be appropriate. Of all places to choose, Cuba seems to be among the most suspicious and most suceptible to contraversy, of practically anywhere in the world.
I don't think the army guys are bloodthirsty monsters, but I also don't think the politicians who give their orders are living up to their responsibilities. The existence of a concentration camp in Cuba, regardless of the circumstances of any war in the Eastern Hemisphere, is intolerable. I'm surprised that it seems to be done without question.
>DNS servers, as the name implies, are for >serving DNS information.
A TXT record with a name, associated with a given origin, *IS* a DNS record. Whether it fits your own narrowly defined idea of what constitutes a DNS record is not relevant. If your ISP does not propagate or cache TXT records, that's another matter entirely. But to say these are not DNS records is an example of the same sort of reasoning that leads people to believe "the Web" is "the Internet."
I don't think you understand. "Widely recognized" and "best practice" only have meaning in an ordered system. You expect China, a country with an interest in the total collapse of the capitalist world, to play by some arbitrary guidelines which are not even rules? Why do you even assume the person who made these reports is even aware that some western idea of propriety and hierarchy exists, or that it applies to him?
What really surprises me is that someone in China had access to a communication channel to get this information out, without it being suppressed by the Party. That reveals a degree of individual freedom that we've been led to believe doesn't exist in China.
Did you tell eveyone in China that they were to play by your rules, that is, "best practices?"
What did you use for the "or else" clause?
Why do you think a US corporation has any control over this? How would you even begin to implement such a control, and why do you think that would work against China?
"It takes only a few minutes to change the administrator password on a Windows box with a Linux boot floppy."
The password recovery tools that have worked in the past, don't seem to work very well on more recent versions of windows. The last time I needed to do this, none of the freely available tools worked.
Rush, Neil Young, Our Lady Peace, Sarah Mclachlan, Nelly Furtado, The Barenaked Ladies, Crash Test Dummies, Bryan Adams, Tragically Hip, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, just off the top of my head.
There are lots of others, but, this probably just reinforces the fact that you don't care about Canadian artists. I wonder if there are more Canadians in TV or film that you'd care fore.
But it seems these bozos even slept through English comp classes.
Or maybe their spending so much of their money on lawyers that they can't afford competent secretaries.
Although I heed the warnings and don't use it on anything important, NTFS read/write support has not been a problem. I've been using it since 2.2.
It would be good to know what specific problems are anticipated and under what circumstances they should manifest. Is there a doc resource for this?
I'm guessing the problems will be more serious if you use windows, for instance, hibernating a windows session then writing its filesystem, stuff like that. I haven't really looked hard, but, I haven't seen a report of any actual problems experienced with NTFS r/w.
What I'd rather see is a good ReiserFS that can be used for the root filesystem on WindowsXP. Not holding my breath of course.
I'm quite certain that my 8th grade math teacher spelled it "google" and "googleplex". That was in 1977. In that lecture, a google was 10^100, and a googleplex was 10^(10^100). I'm aware that Dr. Kasner spelled it googol in 1940. But it was definitely already being misspelled "google" by math teachers in the 1970s.
As a native speaker of English, I have to say that the spelling "-le" has always "felt better" than "-ol".
"Not so. For example, you can blackmail someone by threatening to tell the IRS that they didn't pay their taxes."
That's a false analogy, and I'm not convinced a court would find that to be blackmail at all. Just tell the judge you felt it was your duty as a citizen to report this heinous abuse, if it's true. If it's not true, it's slander of course.
Nevertheless, SCO isn't threatening to tell the court that someone hasn't paid their taxes. SCO is saying that it owns something, that they are entitled to license terms, and *if* they choose to collect on those terms and you refuse to pay, then they will ask a court to settle the dispute. This isn't exactly the Giancana family putting the muscle on you.
Like I said, they are coloring inside the lines, scrupulously staying *just barely* inside the lines, but, until they do something actionable, and until someone either has the gumption to file suit or has evidence of a crime that would get the attention of a prosecuting body, who cares?
It's only barratry if the case is without merit. Unless you're the judge in SCO v. IBM, I don't think you're qualified to make that conclusion just yet. Taking away SCO's right to petition the court to settle their dispute with IBM, is tantamount to abridging my own rights to due process of law. Until there is some ground to do so, and until there is some real evidence of wrongdoing by SCO, it's not right to accuse them.
I'm firmly in opposition to SCO because I believe they've made a mistake regarding their ownership rights, I believe their agents have not maintained themselves in a professional manner, and I believe they will lose in court. I'm quite certain that this trial will not even be granted a hearing once the first depositions are in and a judge gets involved for the first time.
But I do not agree that anyone has done anything illegal yet. The moment someone representing SCO makes a sworn statement that the company owns something that it does not, especially when it can be shown that the individual making the statement knew it to be false, I'll agree with that sentiment. Or if SCO actually mails out demand letters and invoices, stating that they own something that they do not.
But the stock stuff, and the idle threats coming out of SLC just don't make SCO into an organized crime ring, not yet anyway.
You might want to call what they are doing "extortion", but I don't think you have credible evidence with which to make the charge. This might be closer to usury than it is to extortion.
It honestly did go into the dumpster. I pulled off the 1 meg trident video card, the 3com nic, and the ram... The machine was an online store selling onions. I just remembered that. Those were strange times.
You are correct. I've given up, and now I assume that FB consoles are something that nobody but me wants or uses. Others are happy with 80x25 consoles and use some sort of XTerm. I prefer 160 column framebuffer consoles, and this is in fact one of the main reasons I run linux.
I thought it was only broken for my radeon card though. I also thought I was the only person still using a radeon 8500LE who wants to use consoles at fbset 1280x1024-75. This has not worked in any 2.6 kernel, whereas it does work well on 2.4. I've reported it. I've tried the patches that were posted, but it doesn't fix the problem I've reported. I gave up.
"Isn't the RIAA using contracts to screw artists and consumers?"
No one is ever forced into signing a contract with the RIAA, period. Anyone who does so, has only himself to blame for the consequences.
Consumers also share the responsibility. If they don't agree with the practices, they should refrain from funding the corporations, which they are solely responsible for doing, because they continue to purchase the products even at increasing rates.
Consumers, inasmuch as they are voting citizens, help create the problem themselves by electing representatives who do not protect their interests, and then they do it again by quietly suffering this government to continue at the status quo. To all appearances it really looks like people are adamantly in support of the current situation, and very few, artists and consumers alike, actually share the view that they have been "screwed" at all.
There is no such thing as a non-negotiable contract, at least not *before* you have signed it.
Produce someone who has been literally coerced into signing a contract and I'll contact the AG myself. Otherwise stop pretending that people have been victimized as opposed to making choices.
"Something bad might happen" must be something illegal. Use of force, restraint of trade, public humiliation. Basically, anything other than a lawsuit. In this case, SCO is threatening a lawsuit. That's well within their rights, and it's not the automatic bankruptcy for the defendant that people seem to think it is.
Barratry it may be, but that's not necessarily a problem under the current system. If you don't like the system, you're welcome to put your energy into a political movement, run for Congress, or whatever you think will help effect change.
Petitioning a court to settle your grievance is simply not the sort of thing that sets off prosecutor's alarm bells, especially not before any actual testimony has been filed.
Your sentence is a bit hard to parse, but, are you suggesting a single-blind trust for campaign contributions? I'd like that. You can contribute all you want to the party or candidate or your choice, but, that candidate will never know it was you who donated. (And if you tell, it's treason, meaning, a capital offense.)
The absolute worst administration nightmare I have ever had, was a customer box in the mid-90's that ran SCO. It's filesystem ran out of inodes. The consequences were horrendous. I convinced the client to literally toss the machine and replace it with a BSD server. Unfortunately, the client chose BSDI, but at least it was better than SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
"Lenin was one such dissident in 1900's, and see what he did when he got the power... examples are plentiful. "
Lenin wasn't all that bad a leader. It was Stalin who destroyed the country. Many of the atrocities that Stalin was responsible for, are attributed to Lenin. To be sure, life was horrible under Lenin, but that was largely because the country was a disaster as a result of the revolution and also still suffering from after effects of the horrible misrule by Nicholas.
Don't make the mistake of confusing the problems of the Civil War with Lenin's rule. He didn't cause it, couldn't stop it, and was making economic progress until he died in 1924.
It was Stalin, with his ridiculous 5 year plans, where farmers literally starved to death by the millions, and factory workers were faced with the choice to work to death or die in a concentration camp. The ruin that Stalin wrought on Russia is truly more severe than what Hitler did to Germany. The difference is that Stalin actually brought Russia into the industrial age, eventually. Nobody came to the rescue of the 15 million that died as a direct consequence of Stalin's rule. He was treated as a god by his followers, and his enemies were silenced by fear.
Compared to Stalin, Lenin was soft. Stalin worked very hard to literally rewrite history, though, and so the understanding of Russian history is quite difficult. It's a pity, because if Lenin had lived just a few more years, Russia might have recovered, and the world would be a different place today (for better or worse.)
On a tangent, does anyone have the photo of the old Joseph Stalin posing with the young Sadaam Hussein?
The very existence of a US Navy presence in Guantanamo Bay Cuba is quite extraordinary, and not universally accepted as lawful. It is actually quite a serious issue to the Cuban government, which does not recognized the occupation, but tolerates it because of the obvious consequences that a challenge to the US would bring.
To me, it's extremely strange that these prisoners are being held within the borders of a communist nation which has been declared an enemy by the current US administration. If these people escape, they escape within a country that is likely to be sympathetic to them.
Why did they pick Cuba for this purpose? I can understand them not taking the prisoners to the US, but, at a minimum, a nation that was a member of the "coalition" would be appropriate. Of all places to choose, Cuba seems to be among the most suspicious and most suceptible to contraversy, of practically anywhere in the world.
I don't think the army guys are bloodthirsty monsters, but I also don't think the politicians who give their orders are living up to their responsibilities. The existence of a concentration camp in Cuba, regardless of the circumstances of any war in the Eastern Hemisphere, is intolerable. I'm surprised that it seems to be done without question.
But Congress, having the sole authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, has not done so.
How do you figure there are "rules of war" to be followed at all?
>DNS servers, as the name implies, are for
>serving DNS information.
A TXT record with a name, associated with a given origin, *IS* a DNS record. Whether it fits your own narrowly defined idea of what constitutes a DNS record is not relevant. If your ISP does not propagate or cache TXT records, that's another matter entirely. But to say these are not DNS records is an example of the same sort of reasoning that leads people to believe "the Web" is "the Internet."
"I still don't understand why a framebuffer console is any different from a screen-sized XTerm"
It's different. I don't want to argue about that.
The important point here, is that a serious bug appears to be going into a production kernel, and I don't understand why that's acceptable to anyone.
I don't think you understand. "Widely recognized" and "best practice" only have meaning in an ordered system. You expect China, a country with an interest in the total collapse of the capitalist world, to play by some arbitrary guidelines which are not even rules? Why do you even assume the person who made these reports is even aware that some western idea of propriety and hierarchy exists, or that it applies to him?
What really surprises me is that someone in China had access to a communication channel to get this information out, without it being suppressed by the Party. That reveals a degree of individual freedom that we've been led to believe doesn't exist in China.
Did you tell eveyone in China that they were to play by your rules, that is, "best practices?"
What did you use for the "or else" clause?
Why do you think a US corporation has any control over this? How would you even begin to implement such a control, and why do you think that would work against China?
"Even if they mean no air conditioning, I can't imagine in the time this occurred it got so hot they couldn't breathe."
You've never been to Thailand.
"It takes only a few minutes to change the administrator password on a Windows box with a Linux boot floppy."
The password recovery tools that have worked in the past, don't seem to work very well on more recent versions of windows. The last time I needed to do this, none of the freely available tools worked.
So they're not dumb, but they are either ignorant or easily manipulated? What's the difference?
Rush, Neil Young, Our Lady Peace, Sarah Mclachlan, Nelly Furtado, The Barenaked Ladies, Crash Test Dummies, Bryan Adams, Tragically Hip, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, just off the top of my head.
There are lots of others, but, this probably just reinforces the fact that you don't care about Canadian artists. I wonder if there are more Canadians in TV or film that you'd care fore.
But it seems these bozos even slept through English comp classes. Or maybe their spending so much of their money on lawyers that they can't afford competent secretaries.
Pot, meet kettle.
>ntfs support as in both read AND WRITE support?
Although I heed the warnings and don't use it on anything important, NTFS read/write support has not been a problem. I've been using it since 2.2.
It would be good to know what specific problems are anticipated and under what circumstances they should manifest. Is there a doc resource for this?
I'm guessing the problems will be more serious if you use windows, for instance, hibernating a windows session then writing its filesystem, stuff like that. I haven't really looked hard, but, I haven't seen a report of any actual problems experienced with NTFS r/w.
What I'd rather see is a good ReiserFS that can be used for the root filesystem on WindowsXP. Not holding my breath of course.
Can someone tell me again, why this DeBeers enterprise is permitted to do business in the United States?
"The Democrats are firmly in the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA that want to keep the DMCA to help them keep their strangleholds in thier markets."
I think the General might just be the one to say "to hell with the entertainment industry -- they don't run this country, I do."
I'm quite certain that my 8th grade math teacher spelled it "google" and "googleplex". That was in 1977. In that lecture, a google was 10^100, and a googleplex was 10^(10^100). I'm aware that Dr. Kasner spelled it googol in 1940. But it was definitely already being misspelled "google" by math teachers in the 1970s.
As a native speaker of English, I have to say that the spelling "-le" has always "felt better" than "-ol".
I have the skills to do some things, but writing video drivers isn't among these.
"Not so. For example, you can blackmail someone by threatening to tell the IRS that they didn't pay their taxes."
That's a false analogy, and I'm not convinced a court would find that to be blackmail at all. Just tell the judge you felt it was your duty as a citizen to report this heinous abuse, if it's true. If it's not true, it's slander of course.
Nevertheless, SCO isn't threatening to tell the court that someone hasn't paid their taxes. SCO is saying that it owns something, that they are entitled to license terms, and *if* they choose to collect on those terms and you refuse to pay, then they will ask a court to settle the dispute. This isn't exactly the Giancana family putting the muscle on you.
Like I said, they are coloring inside the lines, scrupulously staying *just barely* inside the lines, but, until they do something actionable, and until someone either has the gumption to file suit or has evidence of a crime that would get the attention of a prosecuting body, who cares?
It's only barratry if the case is without merit. Unless you're the judge in SCO v. IBM, I don't think you're qualified to make that conclusion just yet. Taking away SCO's right to petition the court to settle their dispute with IBM, is tantamount to abridging my own rights to due process of law. Until there is some ground to do so, and until there is some real evidence of wrongdoing by SCO, it's not right to accuse them.
I'm firmly in opposition to SCO because I believe they've made a mistake regarding their ownership rights, I believe their agents have not maintained themselves in a professional manner, and I believe they will lose in court. I'm quite certain that this trial will not even be granted a hearing once the first depositions are in and a judge gets involved for the first time.
But I do not agree that anyone has done anything illegal yet. The moment someone representing SCO makes a sworn statement that the company owns something that it does not, especially when it can be shown that the individual making the statement knew it to be false, I'll agree with that sentiment. Or if SCO actually mails out demand letters and invoices, stating that they own something that they do not.
But the stock stuff, and the idle threats coming out of SLC just don't make SCO into an organized crime ring, not yet anyway.
You might want to call what they are doing "extortion", but I don't think you have credible evidence with which to make the charge.
This might be closer to usury than it is to extortion.
It honestly did go into the dumpster. I pulled off the 1 meg trident video card, the 3com nic, and the ram... The machine was an online store selling onions. I just remembered that. Those were strange times.
You are correct. I've given up, and now I assume that FB consoles are something that nobody but me wants or uses. Others are happy with 80x25 consoles and use some sort of XTerm. I prefer 160 column framebuffer consoles, and this is in fact one of the main reasons I run linux.
I thought it was only broken for my radeon card though. I also thought I was the only person still using a radeon 8500LE who wants to use consoles at fbset 1280x1024-75. This has not worked in any 2.6 kernel, whereas it does work well on 2.4. I've reported it. I've tried the patches that were posted, but it doesn't fix the problem I've reported. I gave up.
"in something only 10 slashdotters know anything about"
Just because you aren't a Math or Physics major doesn't mean we aren't in here.
"Isn't the RIAA using contracts to screw artists and consumers?"
No one is ever forced into signing a contract with the RIAA, period. Anyone who does so, has only himself to blame for the consequences.
Consumers also share the responsibility. If they don't agree with the practices, they should refrain from funding the corporations, which they are solely responsible for doing, because they continue to purchase the products even at increasing rates.
Consumers, inasmuch as they are voting citizens, help create the problem themselves by electing representatives who do not protect their interests, and then they do it again by quietly suffering this government to continue at the status quo. To all appearances it really looks like people are adamantly in support of the current situation, and very few, artists and consumers alike, actually share the view that they have been "screwed" at all.
There is no such thing as a non-negotiable contract, at least not *before* you have signed it.
Produce someone who has been literally coerced into signing a contract and I'll contact the AG myself. Otherwise stop pretending that people have been victimized as opposed to making choices.
"Something bad might happen" must be something illegal. Use of force, restraint of trade, public humiliation. Basically, anything other than a lawsuit. In this case, SCO is threatening a lawsuit. That's well within their rights, and it's not the automatic bankruptcy for the defendant that people seem to think it is.
Barratry it may be, but that's not necessarily a problem under the current system. If you don't like the system, you're welcome to put your energy into a political movement, run for Congress, or whatever you think will help effect change.
Petitioning a court to settle your grievance is simply not the sort of thing that sets off prosecutor's alarm bells, especially not before any actual testimony has been filed.
Your sentence is a bit hard to parse, but, are you suggesting a single-blind trust for campaign contributions? I'd like that. You can contribute all you want to the party or candidate or your choice, but, that candidate will never know it was you who donated. (And if you tell, it's treason, meaning, a capital offense.)
The absolute worst administration nightmare I have ever had, was a customer box in the mid-90's that ran SCO. It's filesystem ran out of inodes. The consequences were horrendous. I convinced the client to literally toss the machine and replace it with a BSD server. Unfortunately, the client chose BSDI, but at least it was better than SCO.