Comments are out of order:
Using your mentality, I can say, without cracking a smile, that you're part of the generation that let Y2K happen Pffft. Nope. I'm a Gen Xer. You can blame Y2K on Boomers. I was telling people as early as the 1980s that coding 2-digit years was a VERY dumb idea.
Because I want to know why you're calling out my generation. Because I see dumb kids in IT today using the same short-sightedness I had when I was their age. I sound like my goddamned old man, but when dammit, the older I get, the smarter my parents get.
On the upside, the Millenials are more security aware than their older co-workers." Security aware? Security aware, my ass. Half of these kids think it's okay to deploy their own, separate Internet proxy -- running on a desktop PC running Windows Server with no security patches and running M$ Proxy Server -- with an open wireless access point running on it. And then, not tell anyone about it!
Pffft.
No, I'm not making this up. This really happened one place I worked.
Not to mention photons are like words: you shouldn't use those you don't understand. Is it a wave or is it matter? It's both. When you're lookin' at it it's a particle, when you're not it's a wave. Is this just too hard for you to accept?
"This content is mine; you can't have it. If you want to access it for free, you have to let me track your activity." I prefer: the content is mine. If you want to access it for free, that's okay, just keep my notices intact. If you want to change it or redistribute it, you gotta let everyone else do what I've done for you.
Unless you have a very large number of devices from which to "view" a network
I said you had to know what you're doing, and I meant it. Whether we're talking about P2P or just a determined individual, for which there is always botnets. Duh.
ow much capacity a device has, how many links it has, how much it might cost a carrier to use those links. How much capacity the switching devices in that network have, what firewall/filtering might be in place. Where the devices are phyiscally located. Other than 'real world' stuff like costs and physical location, the rest of the information is basically discoverable by various network and network security testing tools for someone with the know-how and motivation.
So - all you guys with guns, who maintain that they can protect us from a corrupt government. Where are you? We need some protecting from a corrupt government. I think you're looking for this guy.
Needed with 1 in 300 being a terrorist So what they're essentially saying is that it must be true that out of a typical high school graduating class of 1,000 or, 30 people -- the equivalent of an entire classroom of kids, is a terrorist. (Just using the high school as an example to show scale, don't mean to imply anything about age or whatnot).
Well, fsck. Guess I'll have to quit my job, move to Montana and live out in the middle of the woods where no one can find me...wait? What did you say? The Unabomber. Sh*t. Time to move to Australia. Is there a big demand for sysadmins in Australia?
Of oourse, it gives those convicted using such information grounds for appeal. The evidence gathered could be thrown out and their convictions overturned.
Correct. But a clarification for your statement is in order, Bruce:
Don't take other people's GPL modifications to your code and commercial license them! This also applies if your code links to libraries that are released under the GPL. Since the code you linked to becomes part of your program, your program is, in essence, a derived work of the library. For example, if you write a media player that links against libquicktime, then you cannot license libquicktime commercially without the permission of the copyright holder. Since libquicktime is part of your GPL'd program, that means that you can't relicense under anything else without removing the dependency on libquicktime.
1. Buy a crappy CP/M hack and sell it to a large mainframe manufacturer 2. Make deals with "compatible" makers, lock them into per-CPU contracts 3. Make new crappy operating system, hype it all to hell, and use your per-CPU contracts to make yourself a virtual monopoly 4. ??? 5. Profit! 6. Get hosed by DOJ for being an abusive monopoly 7. Make a new crappy rev so buggy and huge and slow that no one wants it 8. New crappy rev flops 9. ??? 10. Develop new OS rev. 11. DOJ no longer thinks you are an abusive monopoly 12. ??? 13. Profit!!!
It's probably not such a big deal now, but some more thought should definitely go into future products. 30000$ sound like much, but it certainly sounds like a bargain if you can kill the Vice President of the USA without even touching him. Several Presidents of the USA were already killed without even touching them: Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, James A. Garfield, and William McKinley. All were killed with such marvelous remote killing technology as a "gun".
You have a two party system because the system is built in a way to favor a two party system, smaller parties have huge barriers of entry and they cannot gain traction. No, actually, it's really not inherently set up that way. Read this info about how loosely-organized parties are.
do not worship your founding fathers because they established this system Not really.
teach critical thinking We do, but we usually either do it poorly or not at all -- most folks don't get classes in critical thinking until they're in college, and not all colleges require that students take a dedicated class in critical thinking, often feeling that critical thinking is something that students will pick up as they go along (yeah, right)
do not worship your founding fathers because they established this system Not really. Look through the link above, (it's above what I linked to) and check out that really means -- we have a two-party system because that's what it 'defaulted' to, not because anyone went out of their way to set it up that way. Voting has also changed and evolved with the country. It's important to remember that states run elections in this country. There is no national election other than the meeting of the electoral college once every four years.
The problem is that the Americans have a two-party system and the one the president belongs to generally has plenty votes to block the two-thirds thing easily. No, we actually don't have a two-party system, we here Stupid Ass Americans (SAA's, for short) just think we do. But, we also think french fries come from France, so I'm sure that explains a lot.
It's a system of what they call "checks and balances". There are 3 branches of government in the U.S. -- the Executive (President, cabinet, military, law enforcement), the Legislative (Congress -- House and Senate), and Judicial (the Courts). The purpose of the veto is to keep Congress from having absolute power to pass whatever they see fit. That's the "check". The "balance" is that Congress can override a veto by a 2/3rd's majority -- something that almost never happens except bills with bipartisan support.
Go get an iPhone, and write your app with Emacs/Vi/Vim/Eclipse whatever get it to compile/run/whatever on the iPhone without the SDK. Oh yeah, you won't be able to take advantage of the iPhone's full functionality without it, did we mention that?
I swear to the Gods if this hippy Steve Jobs lovefest on Slashdot lasts any longer, I'm gonna puke.
What are you talking about? A well-accepted industry practice? Name another company with a consumer product that does this.
They are simply stating that they are releasing the official SDK on their terms. If you don't like their terms, feel free to break the license or not use the SDK. If you break the license, you can be sued.
There's nothing legally or morally wrong with Apple choosing restrictive terms. Legally? No. That's the only thing that's different between Microsoft doing this and Apple doing this. Microsoft doing this would be looked at very carefully by the FTC and EU for possible trust violations. Apple doing this isn't illegal, but morally wrong? Yeah, it is. It's morally wrong to prevent your customers from using applications you don't like on a computing device (yes, computing device -- no smartphone is 'just a phone') that they bought and paid good money for.
It's not even like they are cutting out competition. Right. Because Opera and Firefox aren't competition for Safari and Java/JDK isn't competition for Objective C/XCode.
At best, they are trying to prevent competition with AT&T's service, and not their own. What does, for example, Java do that is in competition with AT&T's service? Java is a freaking programming language and it runs on virtually all of AT&T's other phones. Surely the move to block Java had nothing to do with AT&T.
People seem to forget that Apple don't need to make it easy for people to develop for the iPhone. They don't have to assist at all. At. All. It's not just a matter of "making it easy". They have made it legally impossible for you to run Java, alternative browsers, and other applications on a product that you shelled out serious cash for.
And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same. No, it's not. It's worse. This is akin to Microsoft releasing a version of Windows, let's call it Windows Fist-up-your-ass edition, and then saying "Our EULA states you cannot install Firfox, Opera, or Java," while, at the same time, adding rules to the Win32 API that block out these applications.
If Microsoft did this, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Because Apple's doing this, it's okay.
Sorry, no dice.
I said this is what would happen. Did anyone listen? No.
Or, how about the guy who publishes user-submitted stories with varying amounts of information on geek websites, adds a misleading headline and sensationalizes the summary, including several misspelled words, and then sits back and waits for all the users to write things like "Fr1st Ps0t", "In Soviet Russia...", "I for one welcome..." and goatse.cx links, all in a desparate attempt to increase subscribers and ad revenue?
I, for one, welcome our new dirty, spelling-challenged, sensationalizing user-submitted story-posting editor overlords!
I don't believe anyone ever said games for linux had to be open source, or free of charge. I'd gladly pay for games that ran on linux platforms. Many of us use linux because we choose to use it, and if we do have to spend money, we just don't want it to go to Microsoft. And I'd put together a business plan for a game studio that focuses on making good games for Linux -- if I thought the market were large enough. And so we go round and round.
Slashdot Mirror
Pffft.
No, I'm not making this up. This really happened one place I worked.
This has been another episode of "Deep Thoughts....by Deep Thought."
I said you had to know what you're doing, and I meant it. Whether we're talking about P2P or just a determined individual, for which there is always botnets. Duh.
*blink* *blink*
<stare look="__blank"> I'm not sure I 'get' it. I really want to get it. Really, I do. I just don't. </stare>
Yeah...my brain was still foggy. Hadn't had my breakfast yet. :)
"But, Caaaaptaaaain....I don't want to post a ST:TNG reference!"
Well, fsck. Guess I'll have to quit my job, move to Montana and live out in the middle of the woods where no one can find me...wait? What did you say? The Unabomber. Sh*t. Time to move to Australia. Is there a big demand for sysadmins in Australia?
Of oourse, it gives those convicted using such information grounds for appeal. The evidence gathered could be thrown out and their convictions overturned.
The FBI should know better.
Hmmm..
1. Buy a crappy CP/M hack and sell it to a large mainframe manufacturer
2. Make deals with "compatible" makers, lock them into per-CPU contracts
3. Make new crappy operating system, hype it all to hell, and use your per-CPU contracts to make yourself a virtual monopoly
4. ???
5. Profit!
6. Get hosed by DOJ for being an abusive monopoly
7. Make a new crappy rev so buggy and huge and slow that no one wants it
8. New crappy rev flops
9. ???
10. Develop new OS rev.
11. DOJ no longer thinks you are an abusive monopoly
12. ???
13. Profit!!!
It's a system of what they call "checks and balances". There are 3 branches of government in the U.S. -- the Executive (President, cabinet, military, law enforcement), the Legislative (Congress -- House and Senate), and Judicial (the Courts). The purpose of the veto is to keep Congress from having absolute power to pass whatever they see fit. That's the "check". The "balance" is that Congress can override a veto by a 2/3rd's majority -- something that almost never happens except bills with bipartisan support.
Go get an iPhone, and write your app with Emacs/Vi/Vim/Eclipse whatever get it to compile/run/whatever on the iPhone without the SDK. Oh yeah, you won't be able to take advantage of the iPhone's full functionality without it, did we mention that?
I swear to the Gods if this hippy Steve Jobs lovefest on Slashdot lasts any longer, I'm gonna puke.
If Microsoft did this, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Because Apple's doing this, it's okay.
Sorry, no dice.
I said this is what would happen. Did anyone listen? No.
Or, how about the guy who publishes user-submitted stories with varying amounts of information on geek websites, adds a misleading headline and sensationalizes the summary, including several misspelled words, and then sits back and waits for all the users to write things like "Fr1st Ps0t", "In Soviet Russia...", "I for one welcome..." and goatse.cx links, all in a desparate attempt to increase subscribers and ad revenue?
I, for one, welcome our new dirty, spelling-challenged, sensationalizing user-submitted story-posting editor overlords!
And so we go round and round.