"But she is now known on the workfloor not for her brains or years of good work but her perky tits. This doesn't matter if like me you got no ambition but if you want to move up who do you think they are going to choose. The guy who jerked off to naked girls or the girl that got naked?"
I seriously don't get this culture. As if seeing someone naked would be such a big thing. Sometimes I wonder how these people reproduce at all.
"Is somebody who can't think ahead about his own future really fit to think ahead about say a companies future or even the entire country?"
To be honest if someone wants to run a country they better be thinking about things of more importance than their ambitions or "how good will this look like 20 years from now on". Social bigotry is not as important than other things like making the ethical choice as a president (one of the reasons why Bush sucks, btw).
"A private school can do that kind of thing. That's why I like them better (among MANY other reasons)."
Za friend za friend! You are a real brother to us! The government/private schools needs more power to crack down on these anarchist youth! Viva El Presidente! Fight for your government too!
(Note: If you wouldn't have said that you like them better because they can do that kind of thing, my post wouldn't have been called to existence. It is one thing that it seems US schools public or private are so authority based or authority indoctrinated, it is another that you're actually supporting that. Since I was 14 I had the up to date laws about education at my home in my country. It is not much that I ever needed it, but I just wanted to know my rights, what I can and can't lawfully do as a student.
The thing is, ethically, morally, or by law the school has nothing to do with a proxy or who operates it or if it is a student. If they think the proxy is illegal they can go to the nearest police station and tell the police about it. If the school thinks it can force a student to shut off a proxy, they have issues with what I believe you call the constitution. The correct way for the school to handle the whole thing would have been to determine whether the students reached content through the proxy that is deemed inappropriate and then they can work out what punishment they want for the student (like suspension of computer usage at school, having a chat with parents, suspending the kid for x days, the usual).)
This whole role thing reminded me to "The Corporation" and Chomsky's description about the corporation as an institution: you can be the nicest person ever, but in your corporate role you can be the equivalent of a gas chamber attendent. What's more scary, that ordinarily nice person can see nothing wrong with it.
Yes, bauxite is mainly used for Alumin(i)um, but here is a snippet from wikipedia:
"Bauxite is a naturally occurring, heterogeneous material composed primarily of one or more aluminium hydroxide minerals, plus various mixtures of silica, iron oxide, titania, aluminium silicates, and other impurities in minor or trace amounts."
Yeah I remember the soviet-era bartel processes in my country. Hungary would sell bauxit ore to the SU, and receive something else. The explanation was that Hungary didn't have good enough facilities to manage production, but of course the soviets just wanted the titanium in that bauxit.
On the tangent a bit, the current hungarian PM owns a lot of those bauxit mines - they've been used as a toxic dump since the last decade or so. Shady dealings.
Yeah well there are several problems with this, like:
- Who said an EULA is equivalent of a contract (as in similarly enforcable, which is backed up by precedent)?
- No contract is above law, if law and contract collides, the contract is void.
I know you were talking about selling your first born methaphorically, but others mentioned things like MS forcing you through EULA to use only their operating system, etc.
Today's news mentioned something about a hunger strike at Guantanamo and also mentioned that the EU and UN are demanding Guantanamo to be closed immediately. Then the report went on that the US seems to want to close Guantanamo too. I got suprised here for a moment, then the report continued, that they want to replace it with prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They didn't learn one bit, they are lieing through their teeth and their only problem with Gitmo is the public shame and pressure, nothing else.
"While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking."
This sentence is enfuriating.
I don't understand why can't even a 3rd grade journalistic source tell the difference between an apartheid/concentration camp* like system in Israel sealing off the West Bank, and a border.
The two cannot be even compared, because they are totally different things. The West Bank is so chopped up into little pieces, zones and now the "fence", that it can take a day to travel 25 miles because of the endless checkpoints, cordons and fences.
*Israel's policy of separation closely resembles pre 1994 South Africa and also resembles pre world war II Germany, (first) making second class citizens out of jews.
It is not contradictory as much as you seem to think so.
Public privacy is almost as expected as private privacy. I don't think too many people would be happy about constantly being followed around by a camera, no matter how public, recording every action of theirs (hint: the photocamera version of it are called the paparazzis).
Also, situations like placing cameras in the floor, recording the people passing by and selling the female underwear shots to porn sites would be perfectly acceptable by you?
Being in public doesn't mean that you don't have privacy, it only means you've got less of it than when being at home in your "private" sphere.
Can see you != should observe you / should record your every move and use that for certain goals they want to achieve.
"I'd REALLY upset any BSA guys who may show up. I have a whole stack of old hard drives and old servers. I wouldn't cooperate in the least, but they'd spend days plugging in machines to find that they're old Linux machines. More than half the hard drives in one three moving boxes are either not readable at all, or data drives from old servers. Most have been wiped, so if they try to recover anything, they'll find dirty pictures from hosted sites."
The bad thing is that they go after running and operative businesses, like the following story which is under huge discussion currently on the hungarian unix portal:
A business had 4 computers, a win2003 server and 3 programmers' desktops. BSA and the police came with a warrant and packed them all up. Three months went by and they got back their server and desktops either completely wiped or with some BSA monitoring tool installed. They have lost a half year's work (the backups were on the server they took) and have damages in the tens of thousands of dollars equivalent of HUF. This is just a latest of their actions as dozens of such stories circulate.
Questions arise: why was the warrant granted? They didn't find anything illegal there, so I'm guessing its entirely just because the BSA wanted one. They costed the small company a lot of money completely unnecessarily and the reason they named for doing so was because they found encrypted partitions (the ext3fs ones, which still doesn't explain why the win2003 got wiped!). Another question: Why are we not safe from these freaks even if you're using the software completely legally or not even using their software? Seems the BSA's word alone is enough for the police to jump on the case, especially as they funded some "courses" for the police on how to act.
"there are no publicly shared proof-of-concept exploits or other information to suggest an attack is imminent that we know of"
The best approach to vulnerabilities is to assume by default that the blackhats already know about them and are actively exploiting it, because you can't prove otherwise, so what you need asap is to inform the people about it.
Thank gods the iraqi have the second amendment so they can resist an attack by their own government...oh wait.
Iraq is a huge country (437,072 sq km) with a lot of people (26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)). You're suggesting that a 100k military force, in a foreign country with practically zero support from the natives should be more effective than it already is? You mean that what, a few thousand soldiers at max dead is effective? I'd say it's brilliantly not, compared to the 100 thousands dead iraqis.
I'd also add that Iraqis get their weapons from neighbouring countries, get the explosives from home made methods or also neighbouring countries or old Saddam-time reserves. They are not running around with a handgun, but with automated weapons mostly.
You must have a different measure of effectiveness than me. They are achieving something, mind you, but it is brutally ineffective. If the USA goes out of Iraq it won't be because they are physically forced to retreat, but because it will be a political decision based on public pressure.
"The problem with your example is that a tactical nuke has but one purpose. It was created to destroy. A hammer, kitchen knife, even a gun have several purposes."
Did I speak to the wind? Where did I mention that I want to ban a hammer or a kitchen knife? Why do you think I was talking about per-case judgement and questions to consider?
Usage of guns for that is long since useless. Warfare advanced considerably since that time and I don't see any amendment saying that you can own an A-Bomb, nervegas, or any military grade equipment capable of taking on the military, so as it stands today that reasoning of the amendment is entirely useless.
I'm on the middle ground I think, between the "omg this could be a tool to do $evil" and "this is just a tool, intent matters!".
Both ends are generalizations. There is no ultimate reasoning why you should either allow all tools to be used just because they are tools or restrict their usage, because they could do something harmful. It should be a per-case decision which involves multiple factors:
How general usage the given tool is? (Perl - tactical nuke)
What is the ratio of harmful and non-harmful usage? (Perl - tactical nuke)
If harm occurs, how serious the harmful effect? (Perl - tactical nuke)
How enforceable is the restriction if it would be applied to the given tool? (Perl - tactical nuke)
Would banning the given tool have any effect on reducing the harm (alternatives to create the same harmful effect?)? (Perl - tactical nuke)
How serious effects would banning the given tool have on legitimate usage? (Perl - tactical nuke)
I don't think my list is even half of what should be asked, but it should show my point. I included the Perl - tactical nuke after every question because it shows how can you make a difference between a tool that should be open to everyone's usage and one that should be restricted. I think the same example is applicable to kitchen knife - gun too, although to a lesser extent and I don't want this discussion to degrade to one about gun control.
The two general ends fail miserably, because if people think something is just a tool, then people could walk around with tactical nukes and if you think that something that can do harm should be restricted then you'd ban Perl and pretty much every software out there and also every household tool and appliance.
To be honest the creationists' argument always reminded me to Zeno's motion paradox. That's what you get when you try to view a continous process as a number of separate things. Evolution is continous and there is no division/distinction between macro- and microevolution the same way Achilles leaves the turtle behind, contrary to creationist belief.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get why would people surrender knives instead of like..._selling_ them?
Even though I'm not from the Uk, I don't think it is illegal to own knives.
After reading up on the article it seems that it is illegal to carry them around in public places, but why would people surrender them for that?
"But she is now known on the workfloor not for her brains or years of good work but her perky tits. This doesn't matter if like me you got no ambition but if you want to move up who do you think they are going to choose. The guy who jerked off to naked girls or the girl that got naked?"
I seriously don't get this culture. As if seeing someone naked would be such a big thing. Sometimes I wonder how these people reproduce at all.
"Is somebody who can't think ahead about his own future really fit to think ahead about say a companies future or even the entire country?"
To be honest if someone wants to run a country they better be thinking about things of more importance than their ambitions or "how good will this look like 20 years from now on". Social bigotry is not as important than other things like making the ethical choice as a president (one of the reasons why Bush sucks, btw).
"A private school can do that kind of thing. That's why I like them better (among MANY other reasons)."
Za friend za friend! You are a real brother to us! The government/private schools needs more power to crack down on these anarchist youth! Viva El Presidente! Fight for your government too!
(Note: If you wouldn't have said that you like them better because they can do that kind of thing, my post wouldn't have been called to existence. It is one thing that it seems US schools public or private are so authority based or authority indoctrinated, it is another that you're actually supporting that. Since I was 14 I had the up to date laws about education at my home in my country. It is not much that I ever needed it, but I just wanted to know my rights, what I can and can't lawfully do as a student.
The thing is, ethically, morally, or by law the school has nothing to do with a proxy or who operates it or if it is a student. If they think the proxy is illegal they can go to the nearest police station and tell the police about it. If the school thinks it can force a student to shut off a proxy, they have issues with what I believe you call the constitution. The correct way for the school to handle the whole thing would have been to determine whether the students reached content through the proxy that is deemed inappropriate and then they can work out what punishment they want for the student (like suspension of computer usage at school, having a chat with parents, suspending the kid for x days, the usual).)
This whole role thing reminded me to "The Corporation" and Chomsky's description about the corporation as an institution: you can be the nicest person ever, but in your corporate role you can be the equivalent of a gas chamber attendent. What's more scary, that ordinarily nice person can see nothing wrong with it.
Yes, bauxite is mainly used for Alumin(i)um, but here is a snippet from wikipedia:
"Bauxite is a naturally occurring, heterogeneous material composed primarily of one or more aluminium hydroxide minerals, plus various mixtures of silica, iron oxide, titania, aluminium silicates, and other impurities in minor or trace amounts."
Titania is Titanium dioxide
Yeah I remember the soviet-era bartel processes in my country. Hungary would sell bauxit ore to the SU, and receive something else. The explanation was that Hungary didn't have good enough facilities to manage production, but of course the soviets just wanted the titanium in that bauxit.
On the tangent a bit, the current hungarian PM owns a lot of those bauxit mines - they've been used as a toxic dump since the last decade or so. Shady dealings.
Yeah well there are several problems with this, like:
- Who said an EULA is equivalent of a contract (as in similarly enforcable, which is backed up by precedent)?
- No contract is above law, if law and contract collides, the contract is void.
I know you were talking about selling your first born methaphorically, but others mentioned things like MS forcing you through EULA to use only their operating system, etc.
"things like the patent office and budget offices must continue operating in the months and years to come when their main offices have been wiped out"
Not to say that I agree or disagree with what you're saying, but don't cockroaches have very high radiation resistance?
Just nitpicking, but OSS != Free as in beer software.
Today's news mentioned something about a hunger strike at Guantanamo and also mentioned that the EU and UN are demanding Guantanamo to be closed immediately. Then the report went on that the US seems to want to close Guantanamo too. I got suprised here for a moment, then the report continued, that they want to replace it with prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They didn't learn one bit, they are lieing through their teeth and their only problem with Gitmo is the public shame and pressure, nothing else.
"While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking."
This sentence is enfuriating.
I don't understand why can't even a 3rd grade journalistic source tell the difference between an apartheid/concentration camp* like system in Israel sealing off the West Bank, and a border.
The two cannot be even compared, because they are totally different things. The West Bank is so chopped up into little pieces, zones and now the "fence", that it can take a day to travel 25 miles because of the endless checkpoints, cordons and fences.
*Israel's policy of separation closely resembles pre 1994 South Africa and also resembles pre world war II Germany, (first) making second class citizens out of jews.
It is not contradictory as much as you seem to think so.
Public privacy is almost as expected as private privacy. I don't think too many people would be happy about constantly being followed around by a camera, no matter how public, recording every action of theirs (hint: the photocamera version of it are called the paparazzis).
Also, situations like placing cameras in the floor, recording the people passing by and selling the female underwear shots to porn sites would be perfectly acceptable by you?
Being in public doesn't mean that you don't have privacy, it only means you've got less of it than when being at home in your "private" sphere.
Can see you != should observe you / should record your every move and use that for certain goals they want to achieve.
That stands true to the election aswell. *cough* diebold *cough*.
"I'd REALLY upset any BSA guys who may show up. I have a whole stack of old hard drives and old servers. I wouldn't cooperate in the least, but they'd spend days plugging in machines to find that they're old Linux machines. More than half the hard drives in one three moving boxes are either not readable at all, or data drives from old servers. Most have been wiped, so if they try to recover anything, they'll find dirty pictures from hosted sites."
The bad thing is that they go after running and operative businesses, like the following story which is under huge discussion currently on the hungarian unix portal:
A business had 4 computers, a win2003 server and 3 programmers' desktops. BSA and the police came with a warrant and packed them all up. Three months went by and they got back their server and desktops either completely wiped or with some BSA monitoring tool installed. They have lost a half year's work (the backups were on the server they took) and have damages in the tens of thousands of dollars equivalent of HUF. This is just a latest of their actions as dozens of such stories circulate.
Questions arise: why was the warrant granted? They didn't find anything illegal there, so I'm guessing its entirely just because the BSA wanted one. They costed the small company a lot of money completely unnecessarily and the reason they named for doing so was because they found encrypted partitions (the ext3fs ones, which still doesn't explain why the win2003 got wiped!). Another question: Why are we not safe from these freaks even if you're using the software completely legally or not even using their software? Seems the BSA's word alone is enough for the police to jump on the case, especially as they funded some "courses" for the police on how to act.
Mind boggles.
Let me correct it for you.
"there are no publicly shared proof-of-concept exploits or other information to suggest an attack is imminent that we know of "
The best approach to vulnerabilities is to assume by default that the blackhats already know about them and are actively exploiting it, because you can't prove otherwise, so what you need asap is to inform the people about it.
Thank gods the iraqi have the second amendment so they can resist an attack by their own government...oh wait.
Iraq is a huge country (437,072 sq km) with a lot of people (26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)). You're suggesting that a 100k military force, in a foreign country with practically zero support from the natives should be more effective than it already is? You mean that what, a few thousand soldiers at max dead is effective? I'd say it's brilliantly not, compared to the 100 thousands dead iraqis.
I'd also add that Iraqis get their weapons from neighbouring countries, get the explosives from home made methods or also neighbouring countries or old Saddam-time reserves. They are not running around with a handgun, but with automated weapons mostly.
You must have a different measure of effectiveness than me. They are achieving something, mind you, but it is brutally ineffective. If the USA goes out of Iraq it won't be because they are physically forced to retreat, but because it will be a political decision based on public pressure.
"The problem with your example is that a tactical nuke has but one purpose. It was created to destroy. A hammer, kitchen knife, even a gun have several purposes." Did I speak to the wind? Where did I mention that I want to ban a hammer or a kitchen knife? Why do you think I was talking about per-case judgement and questions to consider?
You've basically ignored most part of my post.
Usage of guns for that is long since useless. Warfare advanced considerably since that time and I don't see any amendment saying that you can own an A-Bomb, nervegas, or any military grade equipment capable of taking on the military, so as it stands today that reasoning of the amendment is entirely useless.
If we save 100 lives and your dad can't shoot deer, then tough shit, he should deal with it and get another hobby.
Both ends are generalizations. There is no ultimate reasoning why you should either allow all tools to be used just because they are tools or restrict their usage, because they could do something harmful. It should be a per-case decision which involves multiple factors:
I don't think my list is even half of what should be asked, but it should show my point. I included the Perl - tactical nuke after every question because it shows how can you make a difference between a tool that should be open to everyone's usage and one that should be restricted. I think the same example is applicable to kitchen knife - gun too, although to a lesser extent and I don't want this discussion to degrade to one about gun control.
The two general ends fail miserably, because if people think something is just a tool, then people could walk around with tactical nukes and if you think that something that can do harm should be restricted then you'd ban Perl and pretty much every software out there and also every household tool and appliance.
"Face it, folks, the US will go the way Britain is going"
Actually, I can't decide if the UK is going on the way the US is going, or the other way around and that fact itself is quite scary.
There are exceptions though, when it doesn't happen the "usual way".
He bought it on auction from David Hasselhoff.
To be honest the creationists' argument always reminded me to Zeno's motion paradox. That's what you get when you try to view a continous process as a number of separate things. Evolution is continous and there is no division/distinction between macro- and microevolution the same way Achilles leaves the turtle behind, contrary to creationist belief.
"from the blame-killproc*-for-the-title dept."
Brilliant, Zonk!
*article submitter