This isn't the military where refusing a direct order can get you shot
Is this so in the US military? Even for illegal orders? If true, I'm not surprised anymore. Where I lived (Germany, Austria), a soldier is not required to follow illegal orders, and can certainly not be punished for refusing them, even under military law.
Did Warren Anderson order that safety issues be ignored?
I'd guess he ordered the plant to produce at costs that mad it impossible to observer security measures, and a CEO should know that. If he ignored that willfully, he is responsibel
What next, one of your employees rapes another one, and the Chairman is brought up on rape chargers?
If you should have known that stuff is set up in your company to make rape happen, then yes, you should be held responsible in some way. The freakin' senior security officer of the site resigned over the security measures at Bhopal, it's not as if the accident happened out of the blue sky
And imagine what would happen to an animal species that kills 43,000 people per year in the US, as much as die in car accidents? It probably would not get more roads built for it
Cage 101: The music in 4'33" is the sound that the audience makes. Interesting if you ask me, but maybe only for regular concert goers. Interesting also that 4'33" is always the only thing people who argue against Cage come up with. Maybe try to listen to other works and try to see it in context?
And I'd appreciate a link to the art you created. You seem to be quite good. Thanks
Cage sucks only when listened to from a "naive" point of hearing, because he doesn't write music to listen to, but to discuss the state of music in the language of music. For someone being well versed in the musical arts, he does not suck.
Saying "Cage sucks" is equivalent to my parents saying Jazz/Punk/Metal/Techno sucks, "because it is all the same". It is all the same only for those without experience with these kinds of music, because they haven't learned to hear what it is about. To me, most 17th/18rh century operas sound the same. And don't let me get started about musical systems that have nothing in common with European functional harmonics, like traditional music from india. Our brains just don't get it.
And someone (Albert Ayler? I forgot) said, paraphrased: As artists discover new ways of making music, listeners have to discover new ways of listening.
I understand how that goes even without being from the US:) What freaks me out is that change in the other direction seems easier, at least at the moment. Nearly all European governments try to reduce public health care and turn it into a US system, which from my POV is proven to suck for the people, but seems to suit the corps. The reasoning is that "we can't afford it". While the people themselves want to afford it. Of course the cost argument is full of lies, when the problem is not that it's too expensive, but that the fraction of taxes collected that comes from taxes on wages in Germany has increased from 60% to 70% from 1960 to 1990 (and probably further since, but because of the German unification, numbers after 1991 are not comparable in this table)
Disclaimer: I don't know which country you mean by "this country".
Anyway: I don't see that. While it may well be true that employers cut back on health care benefits, I don't see why this is a bad thing - I don't need it anyway. Companies that want to attract top personnel will maybe need to come up with other reasons why I should decide to work for them. In my experience in Germany and Austria, the 2 employers I worked for that I really cared to work for (I had 4 employers in 10 years of work life) all offered health insurance benefits. One of those is a US company, the other is based in Austria. Because the basic needs are taken care of by public health care, their insurance packages offered stuff on top of that - good for me.
I think it's simply the fact that the amount the individual spends for health care is not diverted into the private insurers' pockets, but goes into public health care. Maybe surprisingly for US citizens, public health care works very well, and private is not always better. E.g., studies (no I won't try to dig up the link, it would be German anyway) in Austria have shown, that in publich helath care, 4% of the total money available goes into not health-related expenditures, while for private insurers it's up to 30%. Not surprising considering e.g. the obscene amounts of insurants' money that is burned for marketing purposes by private insurers - marketing that is mostly not needed by public health care
what it generally means is lower quality over all for everyone
Bull. I've lived in Austria and Germany, both countries with extensive universal health care. Contrary to what some US/.ers seem to think, universal health care does not mean that you are prohibited to have additional insurance. E.g., in Austria, most hospitals have 2 bed rooms payed for by universal care. If you want a guaranteed single bed room, you can pay additional private insurance. And so forth. However, the universal care provides good enough help for nearly everything. Main advantage is that of course that you don't have a large part of the population having no care at all, breeding tuberculosis and what not.
I haven't felt the need to insist on my previous point because you haven't made any convincing arguments against it.:)
I thought the fact that a current desktop-targeted distro like Ubuntu is very secure out of the box (since there are no services running) was a pretty good point. Maybe it does not mean that it is easier to get secure than a current Windows install, but anyway it is not harder, which is what you said.
Here is a link to a news report of that study. As you say, my argument is valid for a completely unpatched Windows box, which covers most PCs you buy at a large retail outlet. No, they won't open up every cardboard box they have on stock whenever there is a new patch. Which means that for the naive it is not possible to go to Walmart, buy a PC, go home, plug in and be safe.
I note that you don't try to insist on your previous point to which I replied, which said "Someone who can't keep a Windows box secure will have a harder time keeping a Linux box secure".
What shall I say, anecdotal evidence etc. I work in a quite large organisation (15,000 users worldwide) with a pretty tight administration (not fascist though). At my location we have 40 PCs running basically Office, Notes, IE, and Sametime. We have to reimage ca. 1 per month due to random breakage. The WMI subsystem in XP seems to be especially brittle, refusing to work arbitrarily. In addition, running Adaware shows that it is impossible to keep a box clean that has IE and Internet access
Um, no. The solution you propose does not work because with the current setup, as a user, you can only pull the packages from testing into stable for a few days/weeks after the Sarge release. After that, testing gets already all the updates from unstable to prepare testing for the release-after-sarge. Holding up this propagation from unstable to testing until all the fixed stuff has moved to Sarge would hold up the development. An additional problem is that after release no new packages can enter Sarge b/c it is stable (due to policy for which there are good reasons).
Related: I always find it amazing that in every Debian story, some people come up with stuff like "I don't know what's the problem, just do A" (or B, C, D,...). Well, lots of Debian Developers who actually know Debian (and its technical and political needs) very well, think a lot about the release process. Don't assume they are all stupider than you ("you" not targetted at gr8_phk specifically, but everyone). If you really think you have a new great idea, post it to the mailing list and try whether it survives the scrutiny it deserves and is in fact suitable for a project with 1,000 developers maintaining 13,000 packages on 11 architectures
I don't know whether this is FUD or not, but let me say this: It depends. Sure a user with no clue and a text editor can wreck linux security. The user type you describe however will in all probability not configure fancy servers. Therefore it all depends on the default setup. Most modern distros are much more secure than a default windows installation (which, as a recent study posted on/. found, survives for 20 minutes on the internet when not patched). Ubuntu in particular has a very secure default setup with no unneeded services running.
Sometimes I hate how right I am all the time. I read Interface at the start of this year as a prequel to the election, and have had the impression that Bush is remote-controlled ever since.
Sadly nobody posted this obvious reference before, so I had to and couldn't moderate the very funny Seinfeld joke ("bro! - brazier!") above:) Which btw is even funnier if you know that the candidate in Interface is named Cozzano
Probably -1 Redundant by now, but I can't be bothered to check. I just need to make sure that also in this story it is said that while Gartner's data may be true, it is conversely also true that for each Linux distro sold x copies of it are made and installed. Thank you for listening
No, I don't. If it saves the life of one American then it's worth it.
Please show that a) Iraqis or Iraq-sponsored people/organisations have harmed Americans in significant numbers before the war b) The war saves the life of Americans
If find b) especially funny considering you have your young die in Iraq every day
If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.
Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.
Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family". And that you can't make any decisions on his behalf when he's unconscious, and instead his parents get to make decisions (who maybe have deserted him 20 years ago because he found out he's gay).
Slashdot Mirror
"Spatial browsing"? There is no such thing: the spatial and the browsing mode are the opposites that are discussed all the time.
Who likes it? I'm a Linux user since 1996, and I like spatial
This isn't the military where refusing a direct order can get you shot
Is this so in the US military? Even for illegal orders? If true, I'm not surprised anymore. Where I lived (Germany, Austria), a soldier is not required to follow illegal orders, and can certainly not be punished for refusing them, even under military law.
Did Warren Anderson order that safety issues be ignored?
I'd guess he ordered the plant to produce at costs that mad it impossible to observer security measures, and a CEO should know that. If he ignored that willfully, he is responsibel
What next, one of your employees rapes another one, and the Chairman is brought up on rape chargers?
If you should have known that stuff is set up in your company to make rape happen, then yes, you should be held responsible in some way. The freakin' senior security officer of the site resigned over the security measures at Bhopal, it's not as if the accident happened out of the blue sky
And imagine what would happen to an animal species that kills 43,000 people per year in the US, as much as die in car accidents? It probably would not get more roads built for it
Cage 101: The music in 4'33" is the sound that the audience makes. Interesting if you ask me, but maybe only for regular concert goers.
Interesting also that 4'33" is always the only thing people who argue against Cage come up with. Maybe try to listen to other works and try to see it in context?
And I'd appreciate a link to the art you created. You seem to be quite good. Thanks
Cage sucks only when listened to from a "naive" point of hearing, because he doesn't write music to listen to, but to discuss the state of music in the language of music. For someone being well versed in the musical arts, he does not suck.
Saying "Cage sucks" is equivalent to my parents saying Jazz/Punk/Metal/Techno sucks, "because it is all the same". It is all the same only for those without experience with these kinds of music, because they haven't learned to hear what it is about. To me, most 17th/18rh century operas sound the same. And don't let me get started about musical systems that have nothing in common with European functional harmonics, like traditional music from india. Our brains just don't get it.
And someone (Albert Ayler? I forgot) said, paraphrased: As artists discover new ways of making music, listeners have to discover new ways of listening.
I understand how that goes even without being from the US :) What freaks me out is that change in the other direction seems easier, at least at the moment. Nearly all European governments try to reduce public health care and turn it into a US system, which from my POV is proven to suck for the people, but seems to suit the corps. The reasoning is that "we can't afford it". While the people themselves want to afford it. Of course the cost argument is full of lies, when the problem is not that it's too expensive, but that the fraction of taxes collected that comes from taxes on wages in Germany has increased from 60% to 70% from 1960 to 1990 (and probably further since, but because of the German unification, numbers after 1991 are not comparable in this table)
Disclaimer: I don't know which country you mean by "this country".
Anyway: I don't see that. While it may well be true that employers cut back on health care benefits, I don't see why this is a bad thing - I don't need it anyway. Companies that want to attract top personnel will maybe need to come up with other reasons why I should decide to work for them.
In my experience in Germany and Austria, the 2 employers I worked for that I really cared to work for (I had 4 employers in 10 years of work life) all offered health insurance benefits. One of those is a US company, the other is based in Austria. Because the basic needs are taken care of by public health care, their insurance packages offered stuff on top of that - good for me.
I think it's simply the fact that the amount the individual spends for health care is not diverted into the private insurers' pockets, but goes into public health care.
Maybe surprisingly for US citizens, public health care works very well, and private is not always better. E.g., studies (no I won't try to dig up the link, it would be German anyway) in Austria have shown, that in publich helath care, 4% of the total money available goes into not health-related expenditures, while for private insurers it's up to 30%. Not surprising considering e.g. the obscene amounts of insurants' money that is burned for marketing purposes by private insurers - marketing that is mostly not needed by public health care
what it generally means is lower quality over all for everyone
/.ers seem to think, universal health care does not mean that you are prohibited to have additional insurance. E.g., in Austria, most hospitals have 2 bed rooms payed for by universal care. If you want a guaranteed single bed room, you can pay additional private insurance. And so forth.
Bull. I've lived in Austria and Germany, both countries with extensive universal health care. Contrary to what some US
However, the universal care provides good enough help for nearly everything. Main advantage is that of course that you don't have a large part of the population having no care at all, breeding tuberculosis and what not.
I haven't felt the need to insist on my previous point because you haven't made any convincing arguments against it. :)
I thought the fact that a current desktop-targeted distro like Ubuntu is very secure out of the box (since there are no services running) was a pretty good point. Maybe it does not mean that it is easier to get secure than a current Windows install, but anyway it is not harder, which is what you said.
Here is a link to a news report of that study.
As you say, my argument is valid for a completely unpatched Windows box, which covers most PCs you buy at a large retail outlet. No, they won't open up every cardboard box they have on stock whenever there is a new patch. Which means that for the naive it is not possible to go to Walmart, buy a PC, go home, plug in and be safe.
I note that you don't try to insist on your previous point to which I replied, which said "Someone who can't keep a Windows box secure will have a harder time keeping a Linux box secure".
What shall I say, anecdotal evidence etc. I work in a quite large organisation (15,000 users worldwide) with a pretty tight administration (not fascist though). At my location we have 40 PCs running basically Office, Notes, IE, and Sametime. We have to reimage ca. 1 per month due to random breakage. The WMI subsystem in XP seems to be especially brittle, refusing to work arbitrarily.
In addition, running Adaware shows that it is impossible to keep a box clean that has IE and Internet access
Um, no.
...). Well, lots of Debian Developers who actually know Debian (and its technical and political needs) very well, think a lot about the release process. Don't assume they are all stupider than you ("you" not targetted at gr8_phk specifically, but everyone). If you really think you have a new great idea, post it to the mailing list and try whether it survives the scrutiny it deserves and is in fact suitable for a project with 1,000 developers maintaining 13,000 packages on 11 architectures
The solution you propose does not work because with the current setup, as a user, you can only pull the packages from testing into stable for a few days/weeks after the Sarge release. After that, testing gets already all the updates from unstable to prepare testing for the release-after-sarge. Holding up this propagation from unstable to testing until all the fixed stuff has moved to Sarge would hold up the development.
An additional problem is that after release no new packages can enter Sarge b/c it is stable (due to policy for which there are good reasons).
Related: I always find it amazing that in every Debian story, some people come up with stuff like "I don't know what's the problem, just do A" (or B, C, D,
I don't know whether this is FUD or not, but let me say this: It depends. Sure a user with no clue and a text editor can wreck linux security. The user type you describe however will in all probability not configure fancy servers. Therefore it all depends on the default setup. Most modern distros are much more secure than a default windows installation (which, as a recent study posted on /. found, survives for 20 minutes on the internet when not patched). Ubuntu in particular has a very secure default setup with no unneeded services running.
Because they know what they are doing
Sometimes I hate how right I am all the time. I read Interface at the start of this year as a prequel to the election, and have had the impression that Bush is remote-controlled ever since.
:)
Sadly nobody posted this obvious reference before, so I had to and couldn't moderate the very funny Seinfeld joke ("bro! - brazier!") above
Which btw is even funnier if you know that the candidate in Interface is named Cozzano
(not that there's anything wrong with it)
Seinfeld reference?
Probably -1 Redundant by now, but I can't be bothered to check. I just need to make sure that also in this story it is said that while Gartner's data may be true, it is conversely also true that for each Linux distro sold x copies of it are made and installed.
Thank you for listening
There is no LAN as far as I read. Internet connectivity seems to be there, so yes, there's very much a need for a firewall
'Not Junk' is also unnecessary.
If a mail erroneosly got filed into the Junk folder, you need a way to tell it that it is in fact legitimate mail, no?
Ok, it's a joke, but you realize that this is the codename for a prerelease. And Longhorn is not so much better :)
No, I don't. If it saves the life of one American then it's worth it.
Please show that
a) Iraqis or Iraq-sponsored people/organisations have harmed Americans in significant numbers before the war
b) The war saves the life of Americans
If find b) especially funny considering you have your young die in Iraq every day
If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.
Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.
Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family". And that you can't make any decisions on his behalf when he's unconscious, and instead his parents get to make decisions (who maybe have deserted him 20 years ago because he found out he's gay).
Etc, etc.