A side question: can Microsoft really not afford to just keep these servers running? I guess they're having some problems with Vista being a flop and all, but how expensive can it be to maintain these servers?
I'm guessing that you've never worked with Microsoft on any sort of project? Microsoft, like many large companies, does not build a project team from the different specialty areas (networking, web services, databases, etc). Instead they maintain separate departments with people that only work on one or two tasks. What this means is that if you're hosting an application for them that uses, say, a Passport login and a web service run by Microsoft, then you're not going to have a contact at Microsoft that knows the whole picture and can help you troubleshoot issues. Instead, you're going to have to call the group that handles Passport, then you're going to have to call the group that handles web services, then the networking group, and no one you talk to is going to know anything about the application you're working on. Hell, sometimes Microsoft doesn't even have their own project managers, they contract that work out to some other party, eg. Unisys actually does a lot of Microsoft's internal technical support. The only people at Microsoft that know the details of your project may well be a bunch of non-technical people in the business group.
With this understanding, I think it becomes clear why Microsoft needs to shut those servers down. It's probably costing them quite a bit of time and resources to keep all of the various departments informed as to what needs to be done to support the licensing servers.
First of all, what are your goals and what are you looking to accomplish by attending college? Do you want a top notch CS education, a good job when you get out of school, both or something else entirely? Are you sure you even need to go to a traditional college?
I know this probably won't be a popular answer, but the truth is that the school you attend really doesn't make all that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Sure it will help you get that first job out of school and it might give you a slight edge over someone else with similar experience, but talented programmers, sysadmins, etc. are in very high demand and employers care more about what you can do than where you came from.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that school is going to completely prepare you for work, it won't. Your CS program is more than likely not going to cover most of the things you'll need to know when working in a real development or operations group within a company. There's just too much practical work involved and University's typically have something against any course that's seen as too practical.
As for what employers will think, in general I would say that large companies are much more likely to care about things like grades, references, certifications, etc. than smaller companies. Small and medium sized businesses just want people who can get the job done; they may not even care if you have a degree. Whatever type of environment you're interested in it is _extremely_ important for you to take a job or internship with a company related to your area of study. When you graduate they may want to hire you full time, but even if they don't you've got experience that many of your colleagues don't have and you also have contacts in industry.
Personally, I'd recommend thinking long and hard about what you want to do when you're out of school and then find a University that's close to those jobs. I studied computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago while one of my brothers studied economics and pre-law at the Champaign/Urbana campus. He went to the bigger name school, but ended up with jobs like selling cutlery and stuffing letters at Caterpillar over the summers while I ended up working for web development companies doing things like e-commerce (this was back in the mid-90's).
You said you prefer the Liberal Arts school, so go there. Potential employers aren't going to look down at you for doing so.
David Miscavige, the current head of the cult of Scientology, was raised in the Scientology environment. Whereas in the past the people at the top of the organization, like L. Ron Hubbard, knew it was all bullshit, the current leaders may actually be true believers.
I suppose that one could say this is Hubbard's greatest accomplishment. He's managed to create an organization and keep it around long enough that there's no one left who knows the organization's true origins. In addition, these people are likely to be much more fanatical in their devotion since, to them, it's not about scamming people out of their money, it's about saving the World.
Wouldn't either version work as "queue up" is British-English for "line up"?
Yes, more women believe in astrology then men -- but not by a huge margin. Women are a mere 5% more likely than the population as a whole to believe in astrology. On the other hand, men are 9% more likely than women to believe in UFOs.
What's with the comparison between belief in UFOs and Astrology? To be precise, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object not spaceship piloted by little green men. If it's flying and you can't identify it, it's a UFO. By this definition there can be no doubt that UFOs exist. That being said, there is a whole lot of evidence that points to UFOs (the spaceship variety) being real. No one's admitting to knowing what they are, but there's just too many sightings from too many credible witnesses to dismiss the phenomenon outright.
Given that Google, MSN, etc. are doing this I bet it's just a matter of time before police start mounting cameras on their patrol cars as a means to identify illegal behavior that the officers in the car might miss. How would you like to get a ticket in the mail a week after a police car driving by takes a photo of you jaywalking? That's the sort of thing this could eventually lead to, and that's not what most people want.
Chicago already does this. They have vans with cameras on top that record the license plates of cars parked on the side of the street as the van drives by.
Chicago's also going crazy with police cameras and red-light cameras. The city's argument is that the police cameras are used to deal with safety/crime problems and the red-light (and illegal turn on red) cameras are for revenue collection, I mean safety. I'm just waiting for those red-light cameras to start issuing jaywalking tickets.
Something you have to understand is that Scientologists _know_ they have the answers to everything (because L. Ron Hubbard said so). If a member has any doubts, then they're "out of ethics" and have to report for additional training (at their expense). The CoS does not use the same meaning of the word ethics that you or I would. To them, ethics is doing and believing exactly what you're told. If you don't understand something, or have questions, then you are assumed to simply not understand the material; because if you did understand the material, you wouldn't have any questions.
The organization is set up so that it slowly isolates members from normal society, both physically but also mentally. Everything the CoS teaches becomes the truth and any conflicting information is actively ignored. The group as a whole forms a sort of feedback loop whereby members receive positive affirmation from the group when they do, experience or feel something the CoS wants them to feel regardless of whether or not it's true. This is why some people claim that Scientology has helped them, it's not because of the "tech", it's because they feel acceptance and safety within that group.
The church has several ways of dealing with dissent and criticism. The first is by declaring someone a suppressive person, or SP. SPs are considered to be very, very evil people as they're trying to suppress or prevent the CoS from saving mankind (yes, that's their stated mission). People who leave the church, or people outside of the church that are trying to talk someone into leaving are "declared" SP which means that Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to them about anything meaningful. If you're a Scientologist and someone is an SP it doesn't matter whether or not they're your father, mother, brother or daughter, they're dead to you. The second way is through their "fair game" doctrine which basically states that the CoS will not punish a member for anything they do towards an SP, be it harassment, extortion, assault or murder.
David Touretzky (yes, _that_ Touretzky) has some great information about Scientology available on his homepage. There's a fantastic article available that describes exactly how someone gets sucked into the cult, little by little. Note I say cult and not religion because the CoS _is_ a cult. They simply call themselves a religion in order to attempt to shield themselves from "interference" from government and to take advantage of IRS tax breaks (so they can keep more money). In addition, they have members sign contracts that absolve the church of any responsibility should something like you dying from their Introspection Rundown happen. Check out this contract they have you sign. Pay particular attention to this sentence,
I understand, acknowledge and agree that the Introspection Rundown addresses only the individual's spiritual needs and I freely consent, without reservation, and without condition or limitation, to Church members conducting the Introspection Rundown, and that I accept and assume all known and unknown risks of injury, loss, or damage resulting from my decision to participate in the Introspection Rundown and specifically absolve all persons and entities from all liabilities of any kind, without limitation, associated with my participation or their participation in my Introspection Rundown.
Notice it says "only the individual's spiritual needs", which means that it doesn't meet your physical needs and you can die from their "ritual" like Lisa McPherson did.
I could go on and on about things like church members being locked into compounds with patrolling armed guards, related organizations like Narconon treating drug abuse problems with long saunas and megadoses of niacin or actual proved conspiracies like Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout, but I'd prefer the reader follow some of the links I provided and educate themselves.
CLTV News covered the event. They're owned by the Tribune Company, so I'd expect to see coverage in the Chicago Tribune, etc. From the short news clip it looked like there were about eight people outside of the Scientology center on N. Lincoln Ave. I was suprised at that turnout seeing as how it was about 35 degrees below zero with the windchill on Sunday.
Re:You need to clarify your question
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
To most people (I hope!) the law is an uncrossable line. A solid boundary of ethical and moral behaviour.
I hope you're kidding, but you're probably not. I'm not sure why anyone would think of the law as an uncrossable line instead of something that says if you do X then you may be punished with Y.
If I'm willing to accept the punishment, then why should I feel bad about breaking the law?
Believing that something is moral and good simply because it's legal is pretty frightening. That sort of thinking leads me to believe that the individual has not developed a moral or ethical code of their own. This is the type of person that supports things like slavery and the oppression or murder of others because the law says it's okay. This is the type of person that will "go Nazi" if only given the chance.
The worst part of the case was finding out they had kept him in jail for almost a year with zero evidence.
Are you saying that bond was denied, or that the defendant could not make bail? Based on the charge, I would guess that the guy simply couldn't make bail.
I suppose the people saying, "how would you like it if we insulted Jesus", don't understand that the vast majority of people in the West wouldn't really care. You certainly wouldn't see people rioting in the streets.
The problem is that it's not possible to determine whether or not an animal is a clone. Even if the FDA mandated that packages containing meat from cloned animals or their offspring be labeled, there would be no way to enforce the rule.
The city of Chicago has been claiming that it's illegal for people to photograph the artwork present in Millennium Park; they say the artwork is copyrighted and that there are contracts in place regarding who's allowed to sell items with those images on them. Sure, the design for the actual piece might be copyrighted by the artist, but any pictures of the work are copyrighted by the photographer.
This presents a long-term opportunity for the next phase in body modification. Who says that a "replacement" organ must be identical to the original equipment? Perhaps athletes will opt for an enlarged six-chambered heart or an abdominal booster-heart to improve endurance.
Currently (in the US) the medical community only allows drugs to be prescribed to people with existing medical problems, they're not allowed to be given to otherwise healthy people who are simply looking for a boost to their natural abilities. I would assume that this way of thinking would simply continue forward, with healthy people being forbidden from improving themselves with new body parts.
We have things like idiot Protestants claiming that Roman Catholics aren't real Christians. (WTF?)
A friend of mine once claimed that Catholics weren't Christians, but Protestants were. I can only assume that she had never heard of Martin Luther and did not know the history of how some of the Christians sects were formed.
I agree with you regarding drivers, but what makes you think this kid knew that diverting a train to a different track would cause a derailment? I can imagine the kid simply thinking the train would go a different direction than expected.
Now, I'm all for people driving the speed limit, maybe a little more. But legally, the speed limit is an upper limit, not a lower limit. And people who drive like the speed limit is just a guideline tend, in my experience, to be more prone to road rage than those who actually obey it.
Those people are angry because others are driving the speed limit in the left lane while the right (or middle) lane is wide open.
Just yesterday there was someone driving 55 MPH (the posted limit) in the left lane on I-94 just north of Chicago. Of course the driving culture in this area dictates that people in the left lane travel 75 MPH. Despite being passed on the right by at least four vehicles and having me, who doesn't like to pass illegally, behind him honking and motioning for the guy to move over, he just continues on his way.
Road rage happens because people see day after day that nothing is being done about drivers that don't understand the concept of matching the flow of traffic and moving to the right when being approached by faster vehicles. I don't know if it's intentional or if they just lack situational awareness. I really, really wish the police force would enforce the laws pertaining to use of the passing lane, but they don't. Hell, on I-94 they don't even enforce the speed limit.
TFA describes how Jobs and co. designed a great device, and makes the point that traditional mobile phone handset businesses has been stifled and denied the opportunity to innovate by network operators.
Is anyone else reminded of the bad old days on the traditional telephone network where you had to lease your phone from Ma Bell? Third party devices were not allowed on the network which meant that Ma Bell had no incentive to either improve their phones or lower the cost.
The 1968 Federal Communications Commission allowed the Carterfone and other devices to be connected directly to the AT&T network, as long as they did not cause damage to the system. This ruling (13 F.C.C.2d 420) created the possibility of selling devices that could connect to the phone system and opened up the market to numerous products, including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones, computer modems and the early, dialup Internet.
It sounds to me like the wireless carriers are simply repeating those mistakes.
I wouldn't say advocating, just thinking aloud. I just find it a bit curious that there would be legislation that required telcos to provide the government with wiretaps, but that telcos are allowed to bill for it. What's to prevent a telco from charging extremely high fees?
I would think that if the government wanted guaranteed access, that they would have set the system up such that they'd have the access they needed/wanted. In this case it seems like they needed access, but were prevented from obtaining it (granted it was their own fault for not paying the bills).
American cars with their hugely over-horsepowered engines (often using a 2 litre plus engine where the Europeans would use 1300cc, and around 200HP where we would use 100) exceed the EPA consumption as soon as you put your foot down, yet most of the power can never be legally used for more than a few seconds.
As the owner of a Firebird Formula with an LS1 engine, I certainly hope you're not arguing against me being able to choose to drive an inefficient vehicle? If I can pay for the gas, I should be able to burn it.
Color me confused. Why should the FBI need to pay for wiretaps? Surely the laws can simply be changed so that telcos are not permitted to charge the government a fee for these services?
Could someone please explain why restricting the sale of alcohol to those under 21 is worth all of the costs/consequences that follow.
Citizens are forced to obtain identification cards in order to buy alcohol
Vendors must check each patron's Id or risk a fine/lose their liquor license
Vendors must apply for liquor licenses
Citizens must pay taxes to support the infrastructure needed to manage the permit process
Citizens must pay taxes to support the additional burden on law enforcement for enforcing the liquor laws
Younger people develop unhealthy views towards alcohol
Why can't we simply allow anyone who wants alcohol to buy it? Vendors can choose not to sell to certain people (ie. young children) and the public can choose whether or not to frequent businesses that sell alcohol. If a store is selling booze to eight year olds, then the public can simply boycott the business.
Sure some people become addicted to alcohol, but why should I be punished for their problems? Sure kids might obtain liquor, but surely parents are capable of addressing such a situation. Sure some people choose to drive drunk and get in a car accident that maybe kills someone, so arrest them for doing so.
By creating a system of laws around the consumption of liquor, we've simply given those in positions of authority new tools to oppress the masses. Liquor stores can be harassed by police sending in underage people. Motorists can be harassed with things like drunk-driving checkpoints. Businesses can be harassed by politicians on liquor control boards who demand bribes, kick-backs or "favors" in exchange for approving an application for a liquor license. Patrons can be harassed by establishments that resell the information on their identity cards.
I say eliminate the whole damn system. I find it doubtful that keeping it in place is less costly than doing away with it entirely.
Agreeing to follow society's rules does not mean agreeing to obeying all of the laws that may be used to govern that society. Laws are not meant to be followed 100% of the time. Rather, there's an agreement that you're free to choose to violate a law, but you will be responsible for the consequences.
I'm free to drive 90 MPH in a 55 MPH zone so long as I pay the fine for the ticket. Choosing to violate the law is in no way morally wrong.
He wants to show them that they "messed with the wrong guy".
Why am I reminded of those "when keeping it real goes wrong" sketches on Chappelles' show?
Based on the execution, it looks like the guy either wanted to get caught, or was so incompetent that he didn't realize that all signs would point to him. There were bugs in his time bombs that prevented them from running and allowed the other admins to find the scripts. He set the bomb to go off on his birthday?! He also went with the rather spectacular catastrophic failure instead of the harder to detect and even harder to repair attack of small data corruptions introduced over long periods of time.
Pulling this kind of crap on a former employer is just idiotic. The FBI _will_ get involved and they _will_ trace it back to you.
So you're actually admitting (and providing great examples) that you're totally dependent on IDEs for writing, building and troubleshooting code? That doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
There is a reason that command lines and makefiles are going the way of the dodo for code generation.
They are? Funny, I just upgraded the packages installed on an intern's FreeBSD system here and I saw plenty use of Makefiles and the command-line.
The last time I saw a relatively small Makefile produce it's completely useless and unreadable output, I almost started to cry and laugh at the same time. And I threw away the entire project when the linker crashes with an equally unreadable error right at the end of minutes of producing even more garbage.
It sounds to me like you don't know what's going on; any programmer worth his salt should be able to read and understand the output from cc or ld. God help you if you ever try to port software to a new system. So what's your solution when you can't get a known good piece of software to build on your system? Use something else, or have someone build it for you?
I'll have my IDE with automatic parsing and linking in the background *anytime*.
Of course you would, you'd be unable to produce a program that compiled and ran properly without it!
Of course, you can use automake and M4 and the like to make it even *more* idiotic, but you might want to leave that as an exercise.
It appears to me that you don't even understand the problems that those tools were created to solve. Not a surprise since you've already stated you must use an IDE.
The bottom line is that if you can't sit down and code with a pen and paper, then you're not ready to use any of the more advanced tools.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing that you've never worked with Microsoft on any sort of project? Microsoft, like many large companies, does not build a project team from the different specialty areas (networking, web services, databases, etc). Instead they maintain separate departments with people that only work on one or two tasks. What this means is that if you're hosting an application for them that uses, say, a Passport login and a web service run by Microsoft, then you're not going to have a contact at Microsoft that knows the whole picture and can help you troubleshoot issues. Instead, you're going to have to call the group that handles Passport, then you're going to have to call the group that handles web services, then the networking group, and no one you talk to is going to know anything about the application you're working on. Hell, sometimes Microsoft doesn't even have their own project managers, they contract that work out to some other party, eg. Unisys actually does a lot of Microsoft's internal technical support. The only people at Microsoft that know the details of your project may well be a bunch of non-technical people in the business group.
With this understanding, I think it becomes clear why Microsoft needs to shut those servers down. It's probably costing them quite a bit of time and resources to keep all of the various departments informed as to what needs to be done to support the licensing servers.
First of all, what are your goals and what are you looking to accomplish by attending college? Do you want a top notch CS education, a good job when you get out of school, both or something else entirely? Are you sure you even need to go to a traditional college?
I know this probably won't be a popular answer, but the truth is that the school you attend really doesn't make all that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Sure it will help you get that first job out of school and it might give you a slight edge over someone else with similar experience, but talented programmers, sysadmins, etc. are in very high demand and employers care more about what you can do than where you came from.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that school is going to completely prepare you for work, it won't. Your CS program is more than likely not going to cover most of the things you'll need to know when working in a real development or operations group within a company. There's just too much practical work involved and University's typically have something against any course that's seen as too practical.
As for what employers will think, in general I would say that large companies are much more likely to care about things like grades, references, certifications, etc. than smaller companies. Small and medium sized businesses just want people who can get the job done; they may not even care if you have a degree. Whatever type of environment you're interested in it is _extremely_ important for you to take a job or internship with a company related to your area of study. When you graduate they may want to hire you full time, but even if they don't you've got experience that many of your colleagues don't have and you also have contacts in industry.
Personally, I'd recommend thinking long and hard about what you want to do when you're out of school and then find a University that's close to those jobs. I studied computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago while one of my brothers studied economics and pre-law at the Champaign/Urbana campus. He went to the bigger name school, but ended up with jobs like selling cutlery and stuffing letters at Caterpillar over the summers while I ended up working for web development companies doing things like e-commerce (this was back in the mid-90's).
You said you prefer the Liberal Arts school, so go there. Potential employers aren't going to look down at you for doing so.
David Miscavige, the current head of the cult of Scientology, was raised in the Scientology environment. Whereas in the past the people at the top of the organization, like L. Ron Hubbard, knew it was all bullshit, the current leaders may actually be true believers.
I suppose that one could say this is Hubbard's greatest accomplishment. He's managed to create an organization and keep it around long enough that there's no one left who knows the organization's true origins. In addition, these people are likely to be much more fanatical in their devotion since, to them, it's not about scamming people out of their money, it's about saving the World.
Wouldn't either version work as "queue up" is British-English for "line up"?
What's with the comparison between belief in UFOs and Astrology? To be precise, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object not spaceship piloted by little green men. If it's flying and you can't identify it, it's a UFO. By this definition there can be no doubt that UFOs exist. That being said, there is a whole lot of evidence that points to UFOs (the spaceship variety) being real. No one's admitting to knowing what they are, but there's just too many sightings from too many credible witnesses to dismiss the phenomenon outright.
Excuse me? That statement's pretty offensive; you should be ashamed for writing it.
Chicago already does this. They have vans with cameras on top that record the license plates of cars parked on the side of the street as the van drives by.
Chicago's also going crazy with police cameras and red-light cameras. The city's argument is that the police cameras are used to deal with safety/crime problems and the red-light (and illegal turn on red) cameras are for revenue collection, I mean safety. I'm just waiting for those red-light cameras to start issuing jaywalking tickets.
More red-light cameras coming to Chicago
Something you have to understand is that Scientologists _know_ they have the answers to everything (because L. Ron Hubbard said so). If a member has any doubts, then they're "out of ethics" and have to report for additional training (at their expense). The CoS does not use the same meaning of the word ethics that you or I would. To them, ethics is doing and believing exactly what you're told. If you don't understand something, or have questions, then you are assumed to simply not understand the material; because if you did understand the material, you wouldn't have any questions.
The organization is set up so that it slowly isolates members from normal society, both physically but also mentally. Everything the CoS teaches becomes the truth and any conflicting information is actively ignored. The group as a whole forms a sort of feedback loop whereby members receive positive affirmation from the group when they do, experience or feel something the CoS wants them to feel regardless of whether or not it's true. This is why some people claim that Scientology has helped them, it's not because of the "tech", it's because they feel acceptance and safety within that group.
The church has several ways of dealing with dissent and criticism. The first is by declaring someone a suppressive person, or SP. SPs are considered to be very, very evil people as they're trying to suppress or prevent the CoS from saving mankind (yes, that's their stated mission). People who leave the church, or people outside of the church that are trying to talk someone into leaving are "declared" SP which means that Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to them about anything meaningful. If you're a Scientologist and someone is an SP it doesn't matter whether or not they're your father, mother, brother or daughter, they're dead to you. The second way is through their "fair game" doctrine which basically states that the CoS will not punish a member for anything they do towards an SP, be it harassment, extortion, assault or murder.
David Touretzky (yes, _that_ Touretzky) has some great information about Scientology available on his homepage. There's a fantastic article available that describes exactly how someone gets sucked into the cult, little by little. Note I say cult and not religion because the CoS _is_ a cult. They simply call themselves a religion in order to attempt to shield themselves from "interference" from government and to take advantage of IRS tax breaks (so they can keep more money). In addition, they have members sign contracts that absolve the church of any responsibility should something like you dying from their Introspection Rundown happen. Check out this contract they have you sign. Pay particular attention to this sentence,
Notice it says "only the individual's spiritual needs", which means that it doesn't meet your physical needs and you can die from their "ritual" like Lisa McPherson did.
I could go on and on about things like church members being locked into compounds with patrolling armed guards, related organizations like Narconon treating drug abuse problems with long saunas and megadoses of niacin or actual proved conspiracies like Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout, but I'd prefer the reader follow some of the links I provided and educate themselves.
CLTV News covered the event. They're owned by the Tribune Company, so I'd expect to see coverage in the Chicago Tribune, etc. From the short news clip it looked like there were about eight people outside of the Scientology center on N. Lincoln Ave. I was suprised at that turnout seeing as how it was about 35 degrees below zero with the windchill on Sunday.
I hope you're kidding, but you're probably not. I'm not sure why anyone would think of the law as an uncrossable line instead of something that says if you do X then you may be punished with Y.
If I'm willing to accept the punishment, then why should I feel bad about breaking the law?
Believing that something is moral and good simply because it's legal is pretty frightening. That sort of thinking leads me to believe that the individual has not developed a moral or ethical code of their own. This is the type of person that supports things like slavery and the oppression or murder of others because the law says it's okay. This is the type of person that will "go Nazi" if only given the chance.
Who Goes Nazi?
Are you saying that bond was denied, or that the defendant could not make bail? Based on the charge, I would guess that the guy simply couldn't make bail.
I suppose the people saying, "how would you like it if we insulted Jesus", don't understand that the vast majority of people in the West wouldn't really care. You certainly wouldn't see people rioting in the streets.
The problem is that it's not possible to determine whether or not an animal is a clone. Even if the FDA mandated that packages containing meat from cloned animals or their offspring be labeled, there would be no way to enforce the rule.
Thanks for posting that link.
The city of Chicago has been claiming that it's illegal for people to photograph the artwork present in Millennium Park; they say the artwork is copyrighted and that there are contracts in place regarding who's allowed to sell items with those images on them. Sure, the design for the actual piece might be copyrighted by the artist, but any pictures of the work are copyrighted by the photographer.
Currently (in the US) the medical community only allows drugs to be prescribed to people with existing medical problems, they're not allowed to be given to otherwise healthy people who are simply looking for a boost to their natural abilities. I would assume that this way of thinking would simply continue forward, with healthy people being forbidden from improving themselves with new body parts.
A friend of mine once claimed that Catholics weren't Christians, but Protestants were. I can only assume that she had never heard of Martin Luther and did not know the history of how some of the Christians sects were formed.
I agree with you regarding drivers, but what makes you think this kid knew that diverting a train to a different track would cause a derailment? I can imagine the kid simply thinking the train would go a different direction than expected.
Those people are angry because others are driving the speed limit in the left lane while the right (or middle) lane is wide open.
Just yesterday there was someone driving 55 MPH (the posted limit) in the left lane on I-94 just north of Chicago. Of course the driving culture in this area dictates that people in the left lane travel 75 MPH. Despite being passed on the right by at least four vehicles and having me, who doesn't like to pass illegally, behind him honking and motioning for the guy to move over, he just continues on his way.
Road rage happens because people see day after day that nothing is being done about drivers that don't understand the concept of matching the flow of traffic and moving to the right when being approached by faster vehicles. I don't know if it's intentional or if they just lack situational awareness. I really, really wish the police force would enforce the laws pertaining to use of the passing lane, but they don't. Hell, on I-94 they don't even enforce the speed limit.
Is anyone else reminded of the bad old days on the traditional telephone network where you had to lease your phone from Ma Bell? Third party devices were not allowed on the network which meant that Ma Bell had no incentive to either improve their phones or lower the cost.
from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterphone_decision
It sounds to me like the wireless carriers are simply repeating those mistakes.
I wouldn't say advocating, just thinking aloud. I just find it a bit curious that there would be legislation that required telcos to provide the government with wiretaps, but that telcos are allowed to bill for it. What's to prevent a telco from charging extremely high fees?
I would think that if the government wanted guaranteed access, that they would have set the system up such that they'd have the access they needed/wanted. In this case it seems like they needed access, but were prevented from obtaining it (granted it was their own fault for not paying the bills).
As the owner of a Firebird Formula with an LS1 engine, I certainly hope you're not arguing against me being able to choose to drive an inefficient vehicle? If I can pay for the gas, I should be able to burn it.
Color me confused. Why should the FBI need to pay for wiretaps? Surely the laws can simply be changed so that telcos are not permitted to charge the government a fee for these services?
Could someone please explain why restricting the sale of alcohol to those under 21 is worth all of the costs/consequences that follow.
Why can't we simply allow anyone who wants alcohol to buy it? Vendors can choose not to sell to certain people (ie. young children) and the public can choose whether or not to frequent businesses that sell alcohol. If a store is selling booze to eight year olds, then the public can simply boycott the business.
Sure some people become addicted to alcohol, but why should I be punished for their problems? Sure kids might obtain liquor, but surely parents are capable of addressing such a situation. Sure some people choose to drive drunk and get in a car accident that maybe kills someone, so arrest them for doing so.
By creating a system of laws around the consumption of liquor, we've simply given those in positions of authority new tools to oppress the masses. Liquor stores can be harassed by police sending in underage people. Motorists can be harassed with things like drunk-driving checkpoints. Businesses can be harassed by politicians on liquor control boards who demand bribes, kick-backs or "favors" in exchange for approving an application for a liquor license. Patrons can be harassed by establishments that resell the information on their identity cards.
I say eliminate the whole damn system. I find it doubtful that keeping it in place is less costly than doing away with it entirely.
Agreeing to follow society's rules does not mean agreeing to obeying all of the laws that may be used to govern that society. Laws are not meant to be followed 100% of the time. Rather, there's an agreement that you're free to choose to violate a law, but you will be responsible for the consequences.
I'm free to drive 90 MPH in a 55 MPH zone so long as I pay the fine for the ticket. Choosing to violate the law is in no way morally wrong.
Why am I reminded of those "when keeping it real goes wrong" sketches on Chappelles' show?
Based on the execution, it looks like the guy either wanted to get caught, or was so incompetent that he didn't realize that all signs would point to him. There were bugs in his time bombs that prevented them from running and allowed the other admins to find the scripts. He set the bomb to go off on his birthday?! He also went with the rather spectacular catastrophic failure instead of the harder to detect and even harder to repair attack of small data corruptions introduced over long periods of time.
Pulling this kind of crap on a former employer is just idiotic. The FBI _will_ get involved and they _will_ trace it back to you.
So you're actually admitting (and providing great examples) that you're totally dependent on IDEs for writing, building and troubleshooting code? That doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
They are? Funny, I just upgraded the packages installed on an intern's FreeBSD system here and I saw plenty use of Makefiles and the command-line.
It sounds to me like you don't know what's going on; any programmer worth his salt should be able to read and understand the output from cc or ld. God help you if you ever try to port software to a new system. So what's your solution when you can't get a known good piece of software to build on your system? Use something else, or have someone build it for you?
Of course you would, you'd be unable to produce a program that compiled and ran properly without it!
It appears to me that you don't even understand the problems that those tools were created to solve. Not a surprise since you've already stated you must use an IDE.
The bottom line is that if you can't sit down and code with a pen and paper, then you're not ready to use any of the more advanced tools.