Dont forget about the constitution, and the right to bear hammers.
People are always misquoting that amendment. It's the right to hammer bears. Which, as the supreme court affirmed in smokey v. ashcroft, means that you have the right to get a bear drunk if it's more than 18 years old.
Re:I'm groovy and haven't found an alternative yet
on
Alternative to Groove?
·
· Score: 1
Capability wise it sounds a lot like Lotus Notes/Domino packaged with their Sametime instant messaging application. Considering that Ozzie was the father of Notes that's not surprising. Any idea how Groove stacks up against Notes as far as features and usability go?
A large part of the reason that this law suit has dragged on so long is that the SCOG paid a law firm $31 million in advance to pursue it to the bitter end. A team of lawyers with buckets of money to spend can keep litigation going for years, whatever the merits of the case. There's wide speculation that the SCOG's original expectation was that IBM would buy them out for a huge sum of money, just to avoid this going to court. IBM declined, and the result is this protacted tit for tat legal battle.
P presents a sane and reasonable argument, and backs it up with references.
He didn't present references, he presented a link to a google search. Why are people so incensed about him? Many people consider anti-vaccine advocates such as this fellow very dangerous to public health.
Re:Autism rates - no relationship to Thimerosal
on
Possible Cure For Autism
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Thimerosal has been virtually eliminated in childhood vaccines in the US, yet we see no decline in autism rates. A large scale Danish study http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/112/3/604/ persuasively argued that there was no link between autism rates and Thimerosal. As in the US, they found that the elimination of thimerosal had no effect on the rate of autism. What causes autism? Hell if I know, but it sure doesn't seem that thimerosal does.
Being an addict/alcoholic may not get you fired, but showing up stoned on the job likely will, and I doubt the ADA will protect you. At http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/qandaeng.htm/ it has this to say:
Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?
A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
This guy was doing the equivalent of drinking on the job.
Perhaps while she feels it's her duty to bring out the truth on SCO's shenanigans, she feels she has no obligation to reveal everything about her personal life. If she responds to the subpoena and allows herself to be deposed by SCO's lawyers, she opens herself up to all sorts of intrusive questions about her life. There may be aspects of her life that she doesn't want to be publicly known for a variety of reasons. Most people familiar with SCO's various lawsuits feel that they've acted unethically multiple times. There's no reason to think that they would behave any differently when deposing PJ or in what they did with the information they received in the deposition.
Speaking as a parent who has raised children, I don't think watching your kids means being invasive in every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean pre-emptively reading their diaries. It doesn't mean saying that they can't have private phone conversations. And to me, that's what saying you have to have access to their myspace account amounts to. Watching your children means spending a substantial amount of time with them. Going to all of their school functions. Volunteering to be their coach. Talking to their friend's parents. Setting curfews and sticking to them. It isn't so much watching as participating.
I've raised children, and I oppose this legislation. Just as I would oppose legislation that gave me a right to see every book my child looked withdrew from the library or bought from a book sellar.
A lot of people consider this the equivalent of requiring written parental permission for children to play at the park. Myspace is probably safer than the park for a lot of children, but no one seems to be proposing that all minors have permission to visist the park. And implementation is not a potential problem, it makes this a non-starter more than anything else. Post after post is hammering away on that theme. Why even push this legislation if there is no practical way to implement it?
And speaking as a parent who has raised children to adulthood, I oppose this legislation because I don't think every little activity my children engaged in needed my signed consent. While raising children, I would have opposed a requirement for validated parental permission (and that's what this legislation is proposing) to go to the park, the library, school dances, football games, basketball games, and on and on and on. I would oppose legislation that gave parents permission to know about every book their children takes out of the library or purchases from a book seller. This is a useless piece of legislation, by a self inflating blow hard. It does nothing to protect children and unnecessarily interferes with my rights as a parent to raise my children in a way that I think produces motivated and self reliant individuals. I don't think it's necessary that every parent be notified, and have to give permission, for every piddly little activity their children engage in. And yes, I do think myspace falls into the category of piddly activities.
The vast majority of kids are molested by a relative or a friend of the family. By the reasoning of this bill, we should be considering banning all contact with relatives and friends of the family, or at least requiring that two or more adults be present with a child if they're not alone. Just so they can keep an eye on one another.
Companies like IBM normally require employees to file patents to keep their jobs, no matter how trivial they are.
I know many, many long term IBM employees in technical positions who have never filed a patent. Filing patents at IBM is viewed favorably, but it certainly isn't a requirement for holding onto a job.
Re:Prediction for 2007: CO2 loses stature
on
Birth of an Island
·
· Score: 1
My source (sorry, no link as his book's not been published yet) says
Even if the book's not published, what's the author's name. Has he published any other books or articles?
This is true in a lot of places. Unless you restrict access or put up signs, people are free to park on your residential property so long as they don't damage anything. People park on my residential propery all the time. Since they aren't damaging anything, and they aren't blocking my access to the street, I don't care. If it ever starts to bother me I'll put up signs telling people to not park on my property. Until then people are free to park on my propery without my explicit permission.
They're not willfully ignorant. They don't know what they don't know. Where I live, you are not required to take a test in order to operate either a computer or a network, wireless or otherwise. The wireless routers that most people buy are consumer devices that they plug in and it runs. No knowledge is required. It's the IT equivalent of a refrigerator. You plug it in and it runs. In purchasing a wireless routere and connecting it to my ISP's network, neither the place where I bought the router, nor the ISP, asked me if I knew what I was doing. Unless you are going to start requiing people to pass exams before they can purchase and operate computers and network equipment, don't expect them to know about security features that you think are second nature to be aware of.
Perhaps the manufacturers of wireless routers should be required to sell them with a default secured configuration, with the ability to turn off security being more of a hassle than leaving it on. If all manufacturers were required to do it, we might see some innovation in making it easy for your average consumer to implement secure home networking.
Where I live, if I leave my front door open, and someone walks into the living room and sits on the couch, no crime has been committed. Depending on the jurisdiction, just wandering onto someone elses property is not a crime. Bad manners perhaps, but not a crime. And is wandering onto someone's wireless network analagous to opening a door, or walking onto the property outside of the house? I own rural land, and uless I post it with no trespassing signs meeting a certain criteria every so many feet, people are free to wander at will onto my property. Below are the legal requirements for posting land in my state.
They must be at least 11 inches square.
They must be posted no more than 40 rods (660 feet) apart, along the boundaries of the area where posting is desired.
At least one sign must be posted along each border and at each corner of the plot.
Posting notices must include the name and address of the person posting.
I don't post, mainly because I don't mind people wandering around in my woods, so long as they don't take anything. This is true for many property owners in my area. I live next to a popular sledding hill, many people cross my property to gain access to the sledding hill. Since I don't put up any barriers or signs restricting access, they are free to do so. They know they aren't on property they own, and they don't have explicit permission to be there, but they know they can be there because nothing is telling them they can't be.
The following state regulations pertain to controlling access to property. They explain that the onus is on the property owner to make it clear that others are not permitted on the property.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.
My wife and daughter recently took a cross country trip together. They took along a laptop with wireless. I had assumed that they would use the wireless networks of the hotels they were staying in. It turns out they used what ever was available. My wife thought that when in a hotel she'd only be able to pick up the hotel's signal. She had no idea she could have perhaps been on networks outside of the hotel. She was also of the opinion that if people didn't want you to use their wireless network, why do they leave it open? From her perspective, wireless networks should be treated like access to real property. If you don't want other people on it, put up barriers or signs. Othewise, don't complain when you find someone camped on it. She's got a point. With real property you assume you can be there unless the owner let's you know in some manner you shouldn't be. Why aren't computer networks the same?
NASA isn't an archival institution, so it's not surprising that something like this would happen. If tapes are found, they should be turned over to an organization for which the archiving of printed and recorded material is one of its central missions.
Security: lotes was incredibly easy to crack as far as getting into a user's email. Simply grab their.id file, copy it to your local machine, and change the password on it. Viola! You can now read their mail database. Out-of-the-box, this was dumb. Exchange & sendmail were inherently much more secure (and lotes was written for the CIA?).
I've been using Notes for 10 years. In the mid 90s I developed Notes apps for several years. In all that time, if a user forgot their password a Notes administrator had to generate a new id file for them and give them a new password. Just having the id file did not give you access to anything without the password. In all the time I've used Notes it's always given the user the ability to employ encryption using public and private keys. Which is perhaps the reason the CIA chose it. Notes has always had a lot of problems, but I have to wonder how accurate all of your recollections are if you got something this significant wrong.
How would Java evolve without Sun to "guide" it. What would Sun certifications mean without Sun there to back it up?
IBM and a passel of other organizations who have based their application strategies on Java would put together an open source consortium that would support and guide Java. Something along the lines of the Eclipse or Apache foundations.
It's great to have all these Iraqi documents, I'm just wondering when they'll post all the documents related to Iraq that were created by US and British officials. This includes all the notes from meetings where decisions were made about the need to go to war. Such as the recently revealed memo by David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time the decision to go to war was made. I know a young man who recently died in Iraq. He extended his enlistment because he was foolish enough to believe Bush's lies about the need to go to war against Sadaam. Bush lied, thousands died. It's a great bumper sticker, and it's true.
Fact is younger people can be forced to work longer and harder because they don't have a family, aren't experiencing hyper-tension, can be paid less, etc.
I'm over 50, still work in a technical capacity in IT, and now that my children are all grown I rarely have family matters interfere with work. My colleagues in their twenties to forties generally have children at home somewhere between new born and mid-adolesence. Meeting work commitments is a lot easier for me than younger people that have young children at home. Now that I don't have children to care for I'm able to work just as many hours as my younger co-workers, and still have more personal leisure time than they do. I never have to worry about the new born keeping me up all night, not being able to travel for work because I have have to arrange child care, &etc. I'm sympathetic to co-workers who have to balance work and childcare, but I've noticed that people who have decided not to have children are more likely to get bent out of shape whenever a co-worker's work is impacted by their children. I don't know, maybe in some cases it wasn't a decision, but they weren't able to, and are forever resentful of those that could.
The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Oh, lighten up. I think it was that paid feminist flunky Robin Williams that said something to the effect that while men have two heads they only have enough blood to use one at a time.
Because SCO paid a big name law firm tens of millions of dollars in advance to represent them to the bitter end. SCO is betting everything on this lawsuit. A popular theory is that SCO thought IBM would settle early on for a large sum just to make SCO go away. I don't think SCO ever expected this to drag on this long.
Slashdot Mirror
Dont forget about the constitution, and the right to bear hammers.
People are always misquoting that amendment. It's the right to hammer bears. Which, as the supreme court affirmed in smokey v. ashcroft, means that you have the right to get a bear drunk if it's more than 18 years old.
Capability wise it sounds a lot like Lotus Notes/Domino packaged with their Sametime instant messaging application. Considering that Ozzie was the father of Notes that's not surprising. Any idea how Groove stacks up against Notes as far as features and usability go?
A large part of the reason that this law suit has dragged on so long is that the SCOG paid a law firm $31 million in advance to pursue it to the bitter end. A team of lawyers with buckets of money to spend can keep litigation going for years, whatever the merits of the case. There's wide speculation that the SCOG's original expectation was that IBM would buy them out for a huge sum of money, just to avoid this going to court. IBM declined, and the result is this protacted tit for tat legal battle.
P presents a sane and reasonable argument, and backs it up with references.
He didn't present references, he presented a link to a google search. Why are people so incensed about him? Many people consider anti-vaccine advocates such as this fellow very dangerous to public health.
Thimerosal has been virtually eliminated in childhood vaccines in the US, yet we see no decline in autism rates. A large scale Danish study http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/112/3/604/ persuasively argued that there was no link between autism rates and Thimerosal. As in the US, they found that the elimination of thimerosal had no effect on the rate of autism. What causes autism? Hell if I know, but it sure doesn't seem that thimerosal does.
Being an addict/alcoholic may not get you fired, but showing up stoned on the job likely will, and I doubt the ADA will protect you. At http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/qandaeng.htm/ it has this to say:
Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?
A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
This guy was doing the equivalent of drinking on the job.
Perhaps while she feels it's her duty to bring out the truth on SCO's shenanigans, she feels she has no obligation to reveal everything about her personal life. If she responds to the subpoena and allows herself to be deposed by SCO's lawyers, she opens herself up to all sorts of intrusive questions about her life. There may be aspects of her life that she doesn't want to be publicly known for a variety of reasons. Most people familiar with SCO's various lawsuits feel that they've acted unethically multiple times. There's no reason to think that they would behave any differently when deposing PJ or in what they did with the information they received in the deposition.
Speaking as a parent who has raised children, I don't think watching your kids means being invasive in every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean pre-emptively reading their diaries. It doesn't mean saying that they can't have private phone conversations. And to me, that's what saying you have to have access to their myspace account amounts to. Watching your children means spending a substantial amount of time with them. Going to all of their school functions. Volunteering to be their coach. Talking to their friend's parents. Setting curfews and sticking to them. It isn't so much watching as participating.
I've raised children, and I oppose this legislation. Just as I would oppose legislation that gave me a right to see every book my child looked withdrew from the library or bought from a book sellar.
A lot of people consider this the equivalent of requiring written parental permission for children to play at the park. Myspace is probably safer than the park for a lot of children, but no one seems to be proposing that all minors have permission to visist the park. And implementation is not a potential problem, it makes this a non-starter more than anything else. Post after post is hammering away on that theme. Why even push this legislation if there is no practical way to implement it? And speaking as a parent who has raised children to adulthood, I oppose this legislation because I don't think every little activity my children engaged in needed my signed consent. While raising children, I would have opposed a requirement for validated parental permission (and that's what this legislation is proposing) to go to the park, the library, school dances, football games, basketball games, and on and on and on. I would oppose legislation that gave parents permission to know about every book their children takes out of the library or purchases from a book seller. This is a useless piece of legislation, by a self inflating blow hard. It does nothing to protect children and unnecessarily interferes with my rights as a parent to raise my children in a way that I think produces motivated and self reliant individuals. I don't think it's necessary that every parent be notified, and have to give permission, for every piddly little activity their children engage in. And yes, I do think myspace falls into the category of piddly activities.
The vast majority of kids are molested by a relative or a friend of the family. By the reasoning of this bill, we should be considering banning all contact with relatives and friends of the family, or at least requiring that two or more adults be present with a child if they're not alone. Just so they can keep an eye on one another.
Companies like IBM normally require employees to file patents to keep their jobs, no matter how trivial they are.
I know many, many long term IBM employees in technical positions who have never filed a patent. Filing patents at IBM is viewed favorably, but it certainly isn't a requirement for holding onto a job.
Even if the book's not published, what's the author's name. Has he published any other books or articles?
This is true in a lot of places. Unless you restrict access or put up signs, people are free to park on your residential property so long as they don't damage anything. People park on my residential propery all the time. Since they aren't damaging anything, and they aren't blocking my access to the street, I don't care. If it ever starts to bother me I'll put up signs telling people to not park on my property. Until then people are free to park on my propery without my explicit permission.
They're not willfully ignorant. They don't know what they don't know. Where I live, you are not required to take a test in order to operate either a computer or a network, wireless or otherwise. The wireless routers that most people buy are consumer devices that they plug in and it runs. No knowledge is required. It's the IT equivalent of a refrigerator. You plug it in and it runs. In purchasing a wireless routere and connecting it to my ISP's network, neither the place where I bought the router, nor the ISP, asked me if I knew what I was doing. Unless you are going to start requiing people to pass exams before they can purchase and operate computers and network equipment, don't expect them to know about security features that you think are second nature to be aware of.
Perhaps the manufacturers of wireless routers should be required to sell them with a default secured configuration, with the ability to turn off security being more of a hassle than leaving it on. If all manufacturers were required to do it, we might see some innovation in making it easy for your average consumer to implement secure home networking.
Where I live, if I leave my front door open, and someone walks into the living room and sits on the couch, no crime has been committed. Depending on the jurisdiction, just wandering onto someone elses property is not a crime. Bad manners perhaps, but not a crime. And is wandering onto someone's wireless network analagous to opening a door, or walking onto the property outside of the house? I own rural land, and uless I post it with no trespassing signs meeting a certain criteria every so many feet, people are free to wander at will onto my property. Below are the legal requirements for posting land in my state.
I don't post, mainly because I don't mind people wandering around in my woods, so long as they don't take anything. This is true for many property owners in my area. I live next to a popular sledding hill, many people cross my property to gain access to the sledding hill. Since I don't put up any barriers or signs restricting access, they are free to do so. They know they aren't on property they own, and they don't have explicit permission to be there, but they know they can be there because nothing is telling them they can't be.
The following state regulations pertain to controlling access to property. They explain that the onus is on the property owner to make it clear that others are not permitted on the property.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.
My wife and daughter recently took a cross country trip together. They took along a laptop with wireless. I had assumed that they would use the wireless networks of the hotels they were staying in. It turns out they used what ever was available. My wife thought that when in a hotel she'd only be able to pick up the hotel's signal. She had no idea she could have perhaps been on networks outside of the hotel. She was also of the opinion that if people didn't want you to use their wireless network, why do they leave it open? From her perspective, wireless networks should be treated like access to real property. If you don't want other people on it, put up barriers or signs. Othewise, don't complain when you find someone camped on it. She's got a point. With real property you assume you can be there unless the owner let's you know in some manner you shouldn't be. Why aren't computer networks the same?
NASA isn't an archival institution, so it's not surprising that something like this would happen. If tapes are found, they should be turned over to an organization for which the archiving of printed and recorded material is one of its central missions.
I've been using Notes for 10 years. In the mid 90s I developed Notes apps for several years. In all that time, if a user forgot their password a Notes administrator had to generate a new id file for them and give them a new password. Just having the id file did not give you access to anything without the password. In all the time I've used Notes it's always given the user the ability to employ encryption using public and private keys. Which is perhaps the reason the CIA chose it. Notes has always had a lot of problems, but I have to wonder how accurate all of your recollections are if you got something this significant wrong.
IBM and a passel of other organizations who have based their application strategies on Java would put together an open source consortium that would support and guide Java. Something along the lines of the Eclipse or Apache foundations.
It's great to have all these Iraqi documents, I'm just wondering when they'll post all the documents related to Iraq that were created by US and British officials. This includes all the notes from meetings where decisions were made about the need to go to war. Such as the recently revealed memo by David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time the decision to go to war was made. I know a young man who recently died in Iraq. He extended his enlistment because he was foolish enough to believe Bush's lies about the need to go to war against Sadaam. Bush lied, thousands died. It's a great bumper sticker, and it's true.
What in the article leads you to think he informed the media? It may be that someone else did, and the reporter contacted him to verify.
Professionals don't publically decry former employer on the way out -- regardless of their disdain.
Hard call what he said as decrying Microsoft. He was professional and circumspect in his quoted comments.
Further, to assume that anyone would care that he is no longer a microserf goes beyond the the pale of self-importance and arrogance.
Judging from the comments on /. many people are interested in this.
I'm over 50, still work in a technical capacity in IT, and now that my children are all grown I rarely have family matters interfere with work. My colleagues in their twenties to forties generally have children at home somewhere between new born and mid-adolesence. Meeting work commitments is a lot easier for me than younger people that have young children at home. Now that I don't have children to care for I'm able to work just as many hours as my younger co-workers, and still have more personal leisure time than they do. I never have to worry about the new born keeping me up all night, not being able to travel for work because I have have to arrange child care, &etc. I'm sympathetic to co-workers who have to balance work and childcare, but I've noticed that people who have decided not to have children are more likely to get bent out of shape whenever a co-worker's work is impacted by their children. I don't know, maybe in some cases it wasn't a decision, but they weren't able to, and are forever resentful of those that could.
The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Oh, lighten up. I think it was that paid feminist flunky Robin Williams that said something to the effect that while men have two heads they only have enough blood to use one at a time.
Because SCO paid a big name law firm tens of millions of dollars in advance to represent them to the bitter end. SCO is betting everything on this lawsuit. A popular theory is that SCO thought IBM would settle early on for a large sum just to make SCO go away. I don't think SCO ever expected this to drag on this long.