At a site where I once worked we had to change our login message from "Welcome to $machine" to "Unauthorized access prohibited" because "welcome" was considered a statement that unauthorized access was permitted.
I think some of the early Slackware distros used to have this as a default login. I haven't seen that for a long time.
Amazing how networks went from communal workspaces to protected territories.
Although under most laws it is not technically true that someone has to trespass a second time before they can be prosecuted, it is true that most laws require some type of prior notice.
When prosecuting a case of trespass, the owner must often demarcate their property with signs indicating that it is private property and trespass is not allowed. This isn't true for all jurisdictions, but the feds generally treat their networks and individual machines in such a manner. All of the ones I've worked on are required to post a warning that they are government property and that unauthorized access is considered criminal trespass.
Pardon. I must be more specific when dealing with ACs.
Your comment might relevent if: A. Ground-based radio time was no longer available -- it is B. Ground-based radio timekeeping independently useful in radionavigation -- it's not
The system I work on no longer uses WBS as a timing device.
So much for/. comraderie. More like a knife to the back.
Yeah, there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that dinosaurs were hot blooded. There is, however, an equal amount of evidence to support the theory that they were cold blooded. Just what distinction you choose to separate dinosaurs from reptiles depends on which theory you support.
Ignore the differentiation of whales from mammals. I'm sure it was an oversight.
>>Really? You mean there isn't an adult on that end of the keyboard? Pity.
Judging by your posts, apparently not.
That is so blatently stupid it requires no retort.
>>Now you have taken the route of mischaraterizing my statements to support your own weak argument? I never said religion >>itself was the reason for the decline of America's technical ability. I said the religious right was responsible for the >>decline.
You're correct,
Good enough. Glad to see you are adult enough to admit when you are wrong.
Simple solution... Loser pays the court for the resources consumed by the court..
So O.J. should be reimbursed by LA county because they couldn't prove he kill his wife and her lover?
I don't think that is practical in criminal cases. You will probably see more vigilante killings if that practice were implemented.
I do think that your suggestion has merit in civil cases. But that would have to have limits on what a losing party would pay. Otherwise a corporation would load up the legal billings on their side in cases against individuals.
You have conveniently forgotten the de-funding of engineering and hard science pursuits and the politicization of NIST during the Clinton Administration.
Which proves what? That Clinton was an asshole?
Where's the argument?
All done by the Religious Left in order to eliminate "corporate welfare".
Religious Left? Do you mean Madonna?
I seriously have no idea what point you are trying to make.
>>Often? Care to cite some numbers in support of your claim?
Care to cite some numbers that disproves it, dickhead?
Ooooh! I hit a nerve!
Positive affirmation requires proof. You can't prove a negative.
>>You have just contradicted yourself. If their is a kernel of truth in the indictments, then they have criminal liability
Only in the world of tinfoil-helmeted simpletons
More personal attacks. I see weakness in your arguments already.... - those who see the world as a nothing but opposites - did I contract myself.
Nice turnaround. Now anyone that disputes your authority is nothing but a freakish paranoid, right?
Every reasonable sized company on the planet - being a collection of imperfect humans after all - has employees who have transgressed both the law and morality.
And this statement is offered in support of what argument?
(OMG! I used logic and a knowledge of human instinct to provide an unproven observation!)
Yes, that previous statement has all of the signature marks of "the sky is blue" and "ice is cold".
Stunning logic.
Maybe an email between low-level employees in a manner that is inconsistent with regulations. In no way is that comparable to CEOs getting together and setting collusion strategies. You see, there are an amazing number of grays in this place we call reality.
We? Are you referring to you and that little bird in your pocket?
See, we can all engage in pointless barbs.
Have you any evidence to support your arguments though?
>>So we should just quit prosecuting criminal cases against corporations?
Good to see that you totally missed the point.
You mean you actually have one?
What I actually said was that out-of-court settlements - something that is terribly vulnerable to fishing expeditions and extortion - shouldn't be allowed.
So all cases should go to court?
Now you have just raised taxes on the people of the State of New York.
You see, settlement save tax dollars by not taking every case to trial.
If they have a case then it should go before a judge and tried.
They do when the parties cannot settle.
But in your "reality" based world, we should bankrupt the citizens to keep the system free from possible extortion.
You should run for Attorney General on that platform.
From their website, their profits last year were 10,000 million US dollars, so 300 million is a good 3 percent of that. Given that shareholders will probably own shares in their hundreds if not thousands, that's enough to be felt by each shareholder.
Yes, but if they were conducting this scam over the course of more than several years, then the losses could be less than 1% per year.
Now I won't argue that the shareholders aren't hurt by the actions of manangement in this particular case. But the windfall that they stood to gain while they controlled the market was far greater than the potential financial risk of the penalty for getting caught.
Often? Care to cite some numbers in support of your claim?
If you really buy into the Spitzer-following belief that big companies are evil and governments are clean,..
I don't, but I do know that corporations wield political control beyond their importance to society at large.
As for Spitzer, consider the numbers game that AIG performed. Not only did they settle, but they settled on *their* terms... then I have a bridge to sell you.
Keep it.
In many ways a lot of these settlements are the end result of extortion - maybe there is a kernel of truth to them,
You have just contradicted yourself. If their is a kernel of truth in the indictments, then they have criminal liability....but the companies settle because they can't compete with the endless resource (and law setting) ability of government.
So we should just quit prosecuting criminal cases against corporations?
I fail to see the point in your rant.
If the government really has a case, it should be proven in court. Settlements out of court are a travesty, and are far too open to abuse.
Well, obviously, there's enough morons out there (with mod points ATM) to get you back up to +5. It's ashame I used the last of my points yesterday to mod up more deserving comments.
That's okay. Enough people wasted their mod points lowering it. Be thankful that you didn't waste yours too.
It still doesn't change the fact that your argument is as dumb as the dumbest religious belief of the people whom you condem.
Perhaps you could try an argument doesn't start out with a personal attack. Then I might consider debating you like an adult.
Geomon how did your first post get rated as insightful?
I don't know. Ask the mods.
An explanation of that would be truly 'insightful'.
Again, I don't control how my posts get modded.
FUD is being used to amp up American interest in the sciences (remember sputnik?).
No, and I would be willing to bet that you weren't alive when it was launched either.
The truth is that the future is going to be one of two outcomes: 1)there is going to be enough resources for all to go around and everything will be just fine or 2) a new nation will arise and not one in the conventional sense.
Unlike yourself, I never proclaimed to be speaking "the truth" but instead confine myself to my own opinions. You may not agree with my opinion, but instead of taking issue with them you attack me. So much for objective truth, eh?
Lets just hope this new nation is tolerant of the inept and stupid (you never know where they'll list you).
Again, so where is your rebuttal of my point?
I mean, instead of the current crop of personal attacks.
I always wonder how much these fines really hurt mega-corps. If they were able to control prices so effectively that they were accused of price-fixing, then the potential profits from that enterprise would be in the billions.
Seems like these fines are just the cost of doing business. I'm sure that $300M is a lot less than their manufacturing charges, or even their advertising expenses.
Scientific progress occurred before the theory of evolution and it's underpinnings.
Yes, but not in biology. Biology is still a fundemental science.
Scientific progress is therefore not dependent on it.
Biology is dependant on the concepts described in evolutionary theory.
The scientific progress of the human race is not dependent on a single theory or idea, only on the scientific method. The history of scientific progress would suggest that the theory of evolution will most likely either change dramatically or be replaced entirely in the next few hundred years. That is the nature of science, always changing.
You are correct on most of what you have written above, but teaching ID or any other subject as an alternative to evolution is not scientific. In order to construct a *scientific* argument about human origins based on ID or any other creationist principle you will have to ignore scientific evidence that supports evolution.
Ignoring scientific evidence is not science. It is religion.
You state that the religious right wing opposes research in human evolution and radiometric dating. Your whole argument then assumes that
evolution & radiometric dating = science and scientific progress
therefore, the religious right wing and the government that supports them are against science and scientific progress.
That is correct.
To cling to a particular philosophical application of a theory or idea and make unsubstantiatedly broad claims about it's impact on science and scientific progress as a whole is the same kind of argument that you indicate are the problem with the religious right wing.
How so?
If you can substitute an established scientific theory with scientific evidence with an alternative explanation that lacks any scientific evidence what-so-ever, then all science is threatened.
I leave you and the religious right wing to your quarrel.
How courageous of you to defend your position.
Actually, I suggested that your post was flamebait.
Without discussing the merits of my claims, I might add.
>>"but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic."
The last statement was obviously designed to provoke people with the opposite view point.
No, that last statement is a fact based on carefully executed public surveys of American's attitudes toward scientific theories.
Having your post modded up as insightful was what annoyed me.
Then piss all over the mods. I don't control how my posts are modded.
No, but you apparently disagree with me so that automatically makes me nuts, right?
Every time I ride the free downtown shuttle bus I have at least four or five fellow passengers who look like they shouldn't be trusted with butter knives, nevermind guns.
And you automatically make assumptions about people you don't know based on how they look?
Now who is nuts?
You sound a little paranoid.
Moral of the story: NEVER make absolutist statements.
Slashdot Mirror
By applying the common law ideal of trespass, now it will be interesting if all the common law ideas of self-defense apply to.
Good point. In the some states in the US, owners are allowed to shoot trespassers.
That would put a dent in spyware installation.
Because humans in space is the most important way to conduct space exploration.
Okay... I couldn't keep a straight face either.
At a site where I once worked we had to change our login message from "Welcome to $machine" to "Unauthorized access prohibited" because "welcome" was considered a statement that unauthorized access was permitted.
I think some of the early Slackware distros used to have this as a default login. I haven't seen that for a long time.
Amazing how networks went from communal workspaces to protected territories.
Looks as though you may be mistaken:
Although under most laws it is not technically true that someone has to trespass a second time before they can be prosecuted, it is true that most laws require some type of prior notice.
Posting is required in some jurisdictions.
When prosecuting a case of trespass, the owner must often demarcate their property with signs indicating that it is private property and trespass is not allowed. This isn't true for all jurisdictions, but the feds generally treat their networks and individual machines in such a manner. All of the ones I've worked on are required to post a warning that they are government property and that unauthorized access is considered criminal trespass.
Pardon. I must be more specific when dealing with ACs.
/. comraderie. More like a knife to the back.
Your comment might relevent if:
A. Ground-based radio time was no longer available -- it is
B. Ground-based radio timekeeping independently useful in radionavigation -- it's not
The system I work on no longer uses WBS as a timing device.
So much for
Toto replies, "How can you tell?"
Of course this is all accomplished by barking very loudly and scampering around.
I guess we shouldn't have jettisoned WBS so quickly.
Yeah, there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that dinosaurs were hot blooded. There is, however, an equal amount of evidence to support the theory that they were cold blooded. Just what distinction you choose to separate dinosaurs from reptiles depends on which theory you support.
Ignore the differentiation of whales from mammals. I'm sure it was an oversight.
(snipped stats)
* 118 Comments
* Not one voted by peers to be anything more than flamebait
I have to agree with the other gentleman- you are, in fact, a dickhead.
And your peers agree that your opinion means (less than) nothing.
>>Really? You mean there isn't an adult on that end of the keyboard? Pity.
Judging by your posts, apparently not.
That is so blatently stupid it requires no retort.
>>Now you have taken the route of mischaraterizing my statements to support your own weak argument? I never said religion >>itself was the reason for the decline of America's technical ability. I said the religious right was responsible for the >>decline.
You're correct,
Good enough. Glad to see you are adult enough to admit when you are wrong.
>>Ooooh! I hit a nerve!
This is about as far as I made it into your drivel,
Yeah, I figured you for a pussy.
however no - my reply was actually just an in-kind to your unnecessarily hostile response.
Yeah, bullshit. You replied to my original post, not the other way around.
It must be fun rewriting history.
I call the dickheads where I see them, and you sir, are one of them.
You know nothing about me other than what I write on Slashdot, which ain't much.
Simple solution... Loser pays the court for the resources consumed by the court..
So O.J. should be reimbursed by LA county because they couldn't prove he kill his wife and her lover?
I don't think that is practical in criminal cases. You will probably see more vigilante killings if that practice were implemented.
I do think that your suggestion has merit in civil cases. But that would have to have limits on what a losing party would pay. Otherwise a corporation would load up the legal billings on their side in cases against individuals.
An adult debate would be a waste of time.
...you obviously have a political adgenda
Really? You mean there isn't an adult on that end of the keyboard?
Pity.
You're belief that religion is what is bringing down America's technical ability is just plain wrong.
Now you have taken the route of mischaraterizing my statements to support your own weak argument?
I never said religion itself was the reason for the decline of America's technical ability.
I said the religious right was responsible for the decline.
Are you claiming the religious right represents all religious people in America?
I could debate you but,
No you can't otherwise you would have started your initial post with a debatable point. Instead you immediately launched into a personal attack.
Yeah, I don't like religion taught as science.
Funny, that.
(and not much substance backing up your claim)
Coming from someone who has provided NO substance, that isn't much of an insult.
You'll have to try harder.
so, it would be like me debating someone who's belief is that "Bush caused global warming which caused Katrina".
You really believe Bush created global warming?
You have conveniently forgotten the de-funding of engineering and hard science pursuits and the politicization of NIST during the Clinton Administration.
Which proves what? That Clinton was an asshole?
Where's the argument?
All done by the Religious Left in order to eliminate "corporate welfare".
Religious Left? Do you mean Madonna?
I seriously have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Read the homepage under my moniker.
You obviously don't know what a leftist is.
>>Often? Care to cite some numbers in support of your claim?
... - those who see the world as a nothing but opposites - did I contract myself.
Care to cite some numbers that disproves it, dickhead?
Ooooh! I hit a nerve!
Positive affirmation requires proof. You can't prove a negative.
>>You have just contradicted yourself. If their is a kernel of truth in the indictments, then they have criminal liability
Only in the world of tinfoil-helmeted simpletons
More personal attacks. I see weakness in your arguments already.
Nice turnaround. Now anyone that disputes your authority is nothing but a freakish paranoid, right?
Every reasonable sized company on the planet - being a collection of imperfect humans after all - has employees who have transgressed both the law and morality.
And this statement is offered in support of what argument?
(OMG! I used logic and a knowledge of human instinct to provide an unproven observation!)
Yes, that previous statement has all of the signature marks of "the sky is blue" and "ice is cold".
Stunning logic.
Maybe an email between low-level employees in a manner that is inconsistent with regulations. In no way is that comparable to CEOs getting together and setting collusion strategies. You see, there are an amazing number of grays in this place we call reality.
We? Are you referring to you and that little bird in your pocket?
See, we can all engage in pointless barbs.
Have you any evidence to support your arguments though?
>>So we should just quit prosecuting criminal cases against corporations?
Good to see that you totally missed the point.
You mean you actually have one?
What I actually said was that out-of-court settlements - something that is terribly vulnerable to fishing expeditions and extortion - shouldn't be allowed.
So all cases should go to court?
Now you have just raised taxes on the people of the State of New York.
You see, settlement save tax dollars by not taking every case to trial.
If they have a case then it should go before a judge and tried.
They do when the parties cannot settle.
But in your "reality" based world, we should bankrupt the citizens to keep the system free from possible extortion.
You should run for Attorney General on that platform.
From their website, their profits last year were 10,000 million US dollars, so 300 million is a good 3 percent of that. Given that shareholders will probably own shares in their hundreds if not thousands, that's enough to be felt by each shareholder.
Yes, but if they were conducting this scam over the course of more than several years, then the losses could be less than 1% per year.
Now I won't argue that the shareholders aren't hurt by the actions of manangement in this particular case. But the windfall that they stood to gain while they controlled the market was far greater than the potential financial risk of the penalty for getting caught.
Because often there isn't guilt.
.. then I have a bridge to sell you.
...but the companies settle because they can't compete with the endless resource (and law setting) ability of government.
Often? Care to cite some numbers in support of your claim?
If you really buy into the Spitzer-following belief that big companies are evil and governments are clean,..
I don't, but I do know that corporations wield political control beyond their importance to society at large.
As for Spitzer, consider the numbers game that AIG performed. Not only did they settle, but they settled on *their* terms.
Keep it.
In many ways a lot of these settlements are the end result of extortion - maybe there is a kernel of truth to them,
You have just contradicted yourself. If their is a kernel of truth in the indictments, then they have criminal liability.
So we should just quit prosecuting criminal cases against corporations?
I fail to see the point in your rant.
If the government really has a case, it should be proven in court. Settlements out of court are a travesty, and are far too open to abuse.
Well, obviously, there's enough morons out there (with mod points ATM) to get you back up to +5. It's ashame I used the last of my points yesterday to mod up more deserving comments.
That's okay. Enough people wasted their mod points lowering it. Be thankful that you didn't waste yours too.
It still doesn't change the fact that your argument is as dumb as the dumbest religious belief of the people whom you condem.
Perhaps you could try an argument doesn't start out with a personal attack. Then I might consider debating you like an adult.
However, the companies are always able to switch to the next shady business practice.
And they do so without admitting guilt.
I wish I could break laws and not admit guilt.
I guess we should all become corporations. That way we could just disincorporate and reincorporate under a different name.
Beats going to jail.
Geomon how did your first post get rated as insightful?
I don't know. Ask the mods.
An explanation of that would be truly 'insightful'.
Again, I don't control how my posts get modded.
FUD is being used to amp up American interest in the sciences (remember sputnik?).
No, and I would be willing to bet that you weren't alive when it was launched either.
The truth is that the future is going to be one of two outcomes: 1)there is going to be enough resources for all to go around and everything will be just fine or 2) a new nation will arise and not one in the conventional sense.
Unlike yourself, I never proclaimed to be speaking "the truth" but instead confine myself to my own opinions. You may not agree with my opinion, but instead of taking issue with them you attack me. So much for objective truth, eh?
Lets just hope this new nation is tolerant of the inept and stupid (you never know where they'll list you).
Again, so where is your rebuttal of my point?
I mean, instead of the current crop of personal attacks.
I always wonder how much these fines really hurt mega-corps. If they were able to control prices so effectively that they were accused of price-fixing, then the potential profits from that enterprise would be in the billions.
Seems like these fines are just the cost of doing business. I'm sure that $300M is a lot less than their manufacturing charges, or even their advertising expenses.
Scientific progress occurred before the theory of evolution and it's underpinnings.
Yes, but not in biology. Biology is still a fundemental science.
Scientific progress is therefore not dependent on it.
Biology is dependant on the concepts described in evolutionary theory.
The scientific progress of the human race is not dependent on a single theory or idea, only on the scientific method. The history of scientific progress would suggest that the theory of evolution will most likely either change dramatically or be replaced entirely in the next few hundred years. That is the nature of science, always changing.
You are correct on most of what you have written above, but teaching ID or any other subject as an alternative to evolution is not scientific. In order to construct a *scientific* argument about human origins based on ID or any other creationist principle you will have to ignore scientific evidence that supports evolution.
Ignoring scientific evidence is not science. It is religion.
You state that the religious right wing opposes research in human evolution and radiometric dating. Your whole argument then assumes that
evolution & radiometric dating = science and scientific progress
therefore, the religious right wing and the government that supports them are against science and scientific progress.
That is correct.
To cling to a particular philosophical application of a theory or idea and make unsubstantiatedly broad claims about it's impact on science and scientific progress as a whole is the same kind of argument that you indicate are the problem with the religious right wing.
How so?
If you can substitute an established scientific theory with scientific evidence with an alternative explanation that lacks any scientific evidence what-so-ever, then all science is threatened.
I leave you and the religious right wing to your quarrel.
How courageous of you to defend your position.
Actually, I suggested that your post was flamebait.
Without discussing the merits of my claims, I might add.
>>"but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic."
The last statement was obviously designed to provoke people with the opposite view point.
No, that last statement is a fact based on carefully executed public surveys of American's attitudes toward scientific theories.
Having your post modded up as insightful was what annoyed me.
Then piss all over the mods. I don't control how my posts are modded.
It is obviously flamebait for the above reasons.
Yeah, just another Appeal to Authority.
Because you've pronounce it so, it is so.
You are still high.
Are you nuts???
No, but you apparently disagree with me so that automatically makes me nuts, right?
Every time I ride the free downtown shuttle bus I have at least four or five fellow passengers who look like they shouldn't be trusted with butter knives, nevermind guns.
And you automatically make assumptions about people you don't know based on how they look?
Now who is nuts?
You sound a little paranoid.
Moral of the story: NEVER make absolutist statements.
Just like the one you just made.
Aye. I'm not sure I could stomach the entitled show.
The internet is an awfully sleazy place.