This is a bunch of bullshit. Happiness needs external conditions to work. Things like modern sanitation, lack of disease and such modern necessities to work.
I never claimed you should be happy all the time, or that some people don't have it hard. However, if you focus on negativity, you'll get depressed. Poor people can't focus on all their hardship, because that would break them like twigs. It's because they start to see how empty their lives really are, people become spiritual. There's an instinct in us searching for more.
I guess you must be an American? Or you've have had it good for too long, taking such things for granted. Go visit the rest of the world, broaden your horizons and tell me that you can be happy while having dysentry. I say you can't.
No I'm not American, but I can say that I've been lucky to grow up where I have and so are you I guess. As for being happy while having dysentry, that is perfectly possible. Just accept that you have dysentry now and are not feeling good. Feeling bad is a part of life, but if you focus on what you feel all the time, you're a slave of your condition - external things. That means that when you feel good, you should just accept it, not put so much meaning into it or think about it - that will kill your moment. You shouldn't force happiness either, or drive away depression, just accept what you feel. Feel it strongly while just observing it. Observe everything in life. Depression will go away that way, and happiness will last longer.
Being rich is no measure for happiness. In fact, the more property you have, the more you are attached to it. Which drives your focus away from your center. So it's not easy for rich people to be truly happy either. In fact, rich people are often depressed but try to force it away and "think happy thoughts". Hurling dust under the carpet never works in the long run.
I can write volumes of this, but don't take it from me. Read on the vedic hinduism yourself, because I'm not very good at explaining this. However, don't just read a book, because you can never experience anything real that way. It's when you live it, that you see the point of such writing. The best way is to get a teacher, because you'll fail more than succeed yourself (I know from experience).
There's no time to go to the hospital. I went there afterwards, but they didn't want me. They told me it is normal, and didn't have a clue what was wrong, what I should do and so on. So I changed my diet, stopped drinking cola/sodas with lots of sugar/beer in the middle of the week, started sleeping more, doing breath-exercises/yoga, meditation and worry less. In the beginning I had some similar problems, and then it passed.
I probably exhaggerated the pulse a little. It was probably more like 180-200. I'm not sure though, because it's hard to know without a watch handy. If _felt_ like it was as fast as the heart could go.
Having suffered from what can be described as heart racing: not really. You don't have a heartbeat of 220+ in pulse when you spot chicks do you? It's a terrifying experience (especially if you're sober) that I imagine may even lead to death if you don't notice it and continue raving full of drugs and alchohole. Instead you should lie down and be calm for about fifteen minutes up to half an hour.
Humanist philosophy is _not_ just another religion, it is the pursuit of truth and the rejection of irrational, false principles, with which radical Islamist societies are riddled.
So you are in fact claiming you know the Whole Truth, or being able to discern it for everyone else? Just like some overly atheists and religious people. What is the difference between you and them? For this question, please focus on what's within too, not just on actions on the outside. Why do you, or I for that matter, feel the need to convince others of our arguments? Will your answers make me happy and contented as a human being?
As a hint I can give you: Truth comes in many layers. To our mind, it's often convenient to peel them off one by one to be able to grasp the layers beyond. So science is indeed correct in many ways, but it's not necessarily the whole truth. Indeed, a bigger truth might contradict much of what science believe today. Likewise, many religions use symbols instead of conventional thinking, that makes them easily misinterpretable. But misinterpretations can be funny;)
Btw, his principles are not really postmodern. They sounded hinduistic to me. Which I believe bases it's principle on that every human is God/Love. That basically we always strive for doing good. Have you ever really strived to be hurt or hurt others? It's just that we live under a veil of illusion, which can really make us confused and frustrated sometimes. Yes, so confused we join a gang and rape women a life or two. That is part of our humanity now, part of God. You see God is everything, also what we perceive as evil. The root of our problems is that we take life too seriously and are controlled by our emotions. So we got to relax; accept it and be willing to change the only person we can truly change -- ourself. This was just a personal briefing, not the whole truth about hinduism btw.
I met lots of annoying people just like you at Harvard - they repeat this mantra about how we are misguided in judging any other culture. I say that's bunk. We can value other cultures for their positive aspects and reject their negative aspects in the same way as we do our own -- I certainly don't blindly accept all practices, of the people, nor of the government of the United States. Nevertheless, the fact that I live in a country where I am allowed to hold such an opinion puts me miles ahead of any unfortunate Afghanis still left to live under the Taliban regime.
I didn't get the impression his speak came from his brain, but from his heart. You get nowhere by condemning even the tiniest aspect of a culture as evil. Undesirable yes, but that is subjective and there's always a reason people do as they do. People are not waking up every day planning who to mutilate in the course of the morning (unless they're seriously sick in their heads). Which is why mental patterns are very important to understand. Why do people do as they do, fall into the same traps again and again etc. Don't condemn them for not being perfect. We ain't either, so no sweat. Next life, it could be my turn to be a mass-murderer, although that would probably be a drag;) You get much farther by being positive though. Telling people reality in a positive way can turn their lives up-side down (not that I'm very competent at that). People can see the 'light', and it's not just Jesus, it's a minor adjustment in mental patterns that have great effect in their lives.
I fear my argument is lost against you though, so I won't continue. Just know that happiness always comes from within. And know that I know that I don't speak nor know the whole truth, and that I accept the truth in your words (the little scraps there are, haha!:o)
If you can't break godwin's rule, how are you supposed to troll? Hehe. Seriously, I think it's okay to reference Hitler germany. There are- and have been regimes that are equal or worse than what happened under WWII. Of course, actual comparisons are meaningless, but there's really nothing special that happened in WWII that hasn't happened later. We should remember that, not believe the fairy tale that the world is at peace now and that we can forget about WWII.
Now, why he's now +5 Insightful I don't know. I guess someone thought he had some facts, which he didn't. Just interesting opinion.
You're right, people should take responsibility of their lives and DO something about it. However, that doesn't justify all the devious tactics Microsoft has been using. So both camps need to grow up, preferably learn to co-exist. At conclusion, people need to be able to say what they believe is wrong too, or else it will remain uncorrected.
Funcom is a norwegian company under norwegian law. IANAL, but maybe this means they have to abide by this to foreigners too? Worth looking into anyways.
No, giving them a break _justifies_ their money-grubbing tactics. As long as people tolerate being slapped for spending money on buggy software, there'll be no cure. That's why people should consider returning AO. If Funcom can't handle a full release, they shouldn't expect any money either. If not enough hardware is the problem, why don't they start in the small? If too many bugs is the problems, why don't they test enough (I signed up)? If too cheap investors are the problem, they should bite over less - not make a fully MMORPG with its tons of quirks and problems. Somebody f*cked up, and the bill as usual goes to the paying public. Wake up!
Along with gazillion other users I got an email that I was now accepted as a beta4 tester. It took me 10 days to finally get the CD from BURNADISC. The delivery can be made faster, but I didn't feel like burning more than $10 just for being a beta tester.
Well, after those 10 days they had gone Gold. Wow. Utter sleaziness from their part is it not? I guess they went out of cash, unless they really LIKE shooting themselves in the foot. Why did they send the email in the first place? I had no real chance at becoming a beta tester at all. I just wanted to try it out, see what it was.
For those who actually bought this product: As I've mentioned earlier on/., there is a norwegian law that you can RETURN FOR A FULL REFUND anything you buy, as long as it's not over counter in a store (varying from 10 days to 3 months after purchase if you never received an obligatory refund-note). You don't even have to tell why! Don't support buggy software any longer! Repeat after me: It's NOT your fault you bought buggy software. They're not your bugs, and you should demand quality from your purchases. Return buggy software products NOW.
If Linux is trademarked, it's a waste of money since it's already dilluted.
- Steeltoe
Re:The Truth Ain't Purdy
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
You didn't really want to follow my argument. Yes, you can compare oranges with apples but they're still two different fruits. So is Ruby and Haskell. You can be biased in favour of one of the types, but that doesn't say much about the specific languages. You can't force a user to switch and expect him to be happy and productive. It's a bigger shift in paradigm for him/her. Of course you lack something in imperative languages that exist in functional ones, but that tune goes the other way too. Personally I hope functional and symbolic languages will lead the way of the future. However, pure imperative forms will continue to be necessary too.
Mozard-Oz is one such language that includes pretty much about everything. It's too heavy for me to understand based on their web-pages, but from what I could gather it looks pretty impressive. That doesn't mean it'll become the One language though, because people like me are too dumb to understand it:P
- Steeltoe
Re:Consensus Answer: I don't need it
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Exactly! Of course geeks don't want to have sex as much as they want to program, so that's probably the reasoning behind it.
- Steeltoe
Ruby can do procedural programming
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Ruby isn't like Java, which forces you to define classes. If you like, you can quickly hack together as many procedural scripts you like or skip procedures altogether. It's ideal for those small, straight-forward batch-jobs.
Yes, Ruby is still a "pure OO" language. The reason it may seem procedural at times is that every code you write is inside a bigger object-context. So when you call functions, they're really member-methods. You just skip context-handling for convenience. The default context for the program code is the Object object, which makes the defined methods global.
- Steeltoe
Re:The Truth Ain't Purdy
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Why compare Ruby with Haskell when they're two completely different types of programming languages? One is imperative while the other is functional. It's like saying Prolog (logical) is better than C (procedural). Different languages for different jobs and all that. Just because a language is XXXX, doesn't mean it doesn't have its merit or place to-be.
- Steeltoe
Re:Consensus Answer: I don't need it
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Most people learn Ruby in one or two days. Why do I have the feeling you don't have a clue what you're talking about? Not to mention the moderation *cough, cough*
- Steeltoe
Re:Advantages over Perl
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
You should rewrite #3 to:
3) Threads - With perl you actually have to compile a special threaded version. Ruby threads work - even on DOS.
Cheers!:-)
- Steeltoe
Re:Because Ruby Rocks! :-)
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
No he wasn't. Avoiding side-effects is very commendable. I like Ruby, even its way with attributes. So the better solution to Ruby is to add a general constraint-package that can guarantee restrictions in code. Kind of like safelevel ($SAFE), but not so hackish.
Ruby is powerful, sometimes too powerful to work with in large groups or utilizing 3rd party code.
- Steeltoe
Re:I can tell you why *I* am not using Ruby.
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Ruby supports including many separate modules into one class (mixins). This makes it much more simpler and powerful than multiple inheritance, because you can make classes with THEIR OWN range of module-ancestors by mixing-in many modules. This eliminates problems where a baseclass inherits something you don't want. I believe Ruby borrows this feature from Eiffel, I'm not confidently sure though.
Someone once copied a past argument of mine about this onto the news group (which is 110% okay by me). I wish someone could explore benefits of such programming more in-depth and publish their results. I have strong belief this is the way of the future for OO, instead of the cludges of multiple inheritance. I also believe the technique can be developed further than now available in Ruby. Those who use it, speak up and publish!;)
The problem with the 'background task' argument is that breaking RC5 is not necessarily the best use to which those cycles can be put.
The nature of the program is that it will prioritize itself down if other programs are in use. On this, the 'best use' argument falls apart. Effectively, the only argument against this on the task-level is wear-out of the CPU. A very tough point to prove damages from. People actually use these sort of programs to "burn in" new hardware. And he WAS administering the computer.
Is it a federal offence to win prizes using a browser at work too now? A fitting symbolic punishment would be to fine him the prize money, since it's not that much. If I were his superior I would just ask him to uninstall it and not install such programs anymore (he was probably underpaid anyways). Talking often works wonders, maybe they should try that next time. Some people just take life too seriously, and then they die.
15 years of buttfucking will teach him not to do criminal activities like this again. When he gets out he will be in-debted without any way to get a decent job. Serves him right.
On a serious note, I fully agree with you. This is not even criminal. At most he should be FINED, not FIRED. This case most likely stems from ignorance and fear in the administration of the university.
Destroying an innocent life, even attempting it, sounds immoral to me, installing an application widely used throughout the IT-sector not necessarily true. He was an admin, probably with root password. They left it up to him to administer the network. It was his call, unless they say he can't do it but their rules gave him that power by being too vague. The administration behind this should be fired instead. Obviously they don't have common sense and good humour. They should be in no position to do what they did.
Oh, *boohooo* you're living in an evil ignorant society, you can't do anything about it and we should all feel sorry for you and ourselves. We're all doomed. *waaaaaaa*
Wake up, wipe off your tears and don't victimize yourself. Even playing quake is more risk to security and waste more bandwidth. You don't fire someone even for that. You set up rules and talk to the person(s) involved. If you should be fired for rules that wasn't written, how are you supposed to be doing your work? Sometimes even the best sysadmin needs password cracking tools, or educate himself in those areas. And please spare us for your crocodile tears.
Everyone involved was making money on IPOs and all that jazz,
You're right, because you don't make any money before you sell a share. Whoever bought shares without profit, lost on the IT-craze. They got suckered in. However, that's their own fault for being greedy.
Often when the stockmarket starts to get predictable in some way, there's a force in it looking for randominity. The knowledge of a "perfect" computer playing on the stock-market, could disrupt the market into even more illogical ups and downs than it already has. Which is not good for the market of course.
As it is now, everytime an analyst predict upgoing trends on a stock, it's time to sell and vice versa. Of course they use this to sell their own because of it. However, as closed-analysis becomes even more advanced the stocks will seem even more random. So the stockmarket is reduced to a pure gambling pot. What this could do is reduce the incentive for people to gamble on it, slowing down the economy.
Analytical reports are designed to manipulate the market. This is unfortunate because the people being suckered in, as always, are of course the small-time gamblers. It's also unfortunate because what should drive the market is knowledge of good companies to invest in, not obscure ideas in an analysts mind or manipulation to get an unfair advantage. So the system is already cracking up as it is, affecting the commercial psyche. Companies are met with unreasonable expectations every single year, some develop obscure bussinessplans or decides to play hard ball with their customers because they need all the economic growth they can possibly grab.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a bunch of bullshit. Happiness needs external conditions to work. Things like modern sanitation, lack of disease and such modern necessities to work.
I never claimed you should be happy all the time, or that some people don't have it hard. However, if you focus on negativity, you'll get depressed. Poor people can't focus on all their hardship, because that would break them like twigs. It's because they start to see how empty their lives really are, people become spiritual. There's an instinct in us searching for more.
I guess you must be an American? Or you've have had it good for too long, taking such things for granted. Go visit the rest of the world, broaden your horizons and tell me that you can be happy while having dysentry. I say you can't.
No I'm not American, but I can say that I've been lucky to grow up where I have and so are you I guess. As for being happy while having dysentry, that is perfectly possible. Just accept that you have dysentry now and are not feeling good. Feeling bad is a part of life, but if you focus on what you feel all the time, you're a slave of your condition - external things. That means that when you feel good, you should just accept it, not put so much meaning into it or think about it - that will kill your moment. You shouldn't force happiness either, or drive away depression, just accept what you feel. Feel it strongly while just observing it. Observe everything in life. Depression will go away that way, and happiness will last longer.
Being rich is no measure for happiness. In fact, the more property you have, the more you are attached to it. Which drives your focus away from your center. So it's not easy for rich people to be truly happy either. In fact, rich people are often depressed but try to force it away and "think happy thoughts". Hurling dust under the carpet never works in the long run.
I can write volumes of this, but don't take it from me. Read on the vedic hinduism yourself, because I'm not very good at explaining this. However, don't just read a book, because you can never experience anything real that way. It's when you live it, that you see the point of such writing. The best way is to get a teacher, because you'll fail more than succeed yourself (I know from experience).
- Steeltoe
There's no time to go to the hospital. I went there afterwards, but they didn't want me. They told me it is normal, and didn't have a clue what was wrong, what I should do and so on. So I changed my diet, stopped drinking cola/sodas with lots of sugar/beer in the middle of the week, started sleeping more, doing breath-exercises/yoga, meditation and worry less. In the beginning I had some similar problems, and then it passed.
I probably exhaggerated the pulse a little. It was probably more like 180-200. I'm not sure though, because it's hard to know without a watch handy. If _felt_ like it was as fast as the heart could go.
- Steeltoe
Having suffered from what can be described as heart racing: not really. You don't have a heartbeat of 220+ in pulse when you spot chicks do you? It's a terrifying experience (especially if you're sober) that I imagine may even lead to death if you don't notice it and continue raving full of drugs and alchohole. Instead you should lie down and be calm for about fifteen minutes up to half an hour.
Here's a link on panic attacks.
- Steeltoe
Humanist philosophy is _not_ just another religion, it is the pursuit of truth and the rejection of irrational, false principles, with which radical Islamist societies are riddled.
;)
;) You get much farther by being positive though. Telling people reality in a positive way can turn their lives up-side down (not that I'm very competent at that). People can see the 'light', and it's not just Jesus, it's a minor adjustment in mental patterns that have great effect in their lives.
:o)
So you are in fact claiming you know the Whole Truth, or being able to discern it for everyone else? Just like some overly atheists and religious people. What is the difference between you and them? For this question, please focus on what's within too, not just on actions on the outside. Why do you, or I for that matter, feel the need to convince others of our arguments? Will your answers make me happy and contented as a human being?
As a hint I can give you: Truth comes in many layers. To our mind, it's often convenient to peel them off one by one to be able to grasp the layers beyond. So science is indeed correct in many ways, but it's not necessarily the whole truth. Indeed, a bigger truth might contradict much of what science believe today. Likewise, many religions use symbols instead of conventional thinking, that makes them easily misinterpretable. But misinterpretations can be funny
Btw, his principles are not really postmodern. They sounded hinduistic to me. Which I believe bases it's principle on that every human is God/Love. That basically we always strive for doing good. Have you ever really strived to be hurt or hurt others? It's just that we live under a veil of illusion, which can really make us confused and frustrated sometimes. Yes, so confused we join a gang and rape women a life or two. That is part of our humanity now, part of God. You see God is everything, also what we perceive as evil. The root of our problems is that we take life too seriously and are controlled by our emotions. So we got to relax; accept it and be willing to change the only person we can truly change -- ourself. This was just a personal briefing, not the whole truth about hinduism btw.
I met lots of annoying people just like you at Harvard - they repeat this mantra about how we are misguided in judging any other culture. I say that's bunk. We can value other cultures for their positive aspects and reject their negative aspects in the same way as we do our own -- I certainly don't blindly accept all practices, of the people, nor of the government of the United States. Nevertheless, the fact that I live in a country where I am allowed to hold such an opinion puts me miles ahead of any unfortunate Afghanis still left to live under the Taliban regime.
I didn't get the impression his speak came from his brain, but from his heart. You get nowhere by condemning even the tiniest aspect of a culture as evil. Undesirable yes, but that is subjective and there's always a reason people do as they do. People are not waking up every day planning who to mutilate in the course of the morning (unless they're seriously sick in their heads). Which is why mental patterns are very important to understand. Why do people do as they do, fall into the same traps again and again etc. Don't condemn them for not being perfect. We ain't either, so no sweat. Next life, it could be my turn to be a mass-murderer, although that would probably be a drag
I fear my argument is lost against you though, so I won't continue. Just know that happiness always comes from within. And know that I know that I don't speak nor know the whole truth, and that I accept the truth in your words (the little scraps there are, haha!
- Steeltoe
If you can't break godwin's rule, how are you supposed to troll? Hehe. Seriously, I think it's okay to reference Hitler germany. There are- and have been regimes that are equal or worse than what happened under WWII. Of course, actual comparisons are meaningless, but there's really nothing special that happened in WWII that hasn't happened later. We should remember that, not believe the fairy tale that the world is at peace now and that we can forget about WWII.
Now, why he's now +5 Insightful I don't know. I guess someone thought he had some facts, which he didn't. Just interesting opinion.
- Steeltoe
This must be the post of the day. Too bad this is /., you'll probably be moderated down as a troll.
:-)
Of course that may change with this post (which will probably be moderated down though. Keep posting
- Steeltoe
You're right, people should take responsibility of their lives and DO something about it. However, that doesn't justify all the devious tactics Microsoft has been using. So both camps need to grow up, preferably learn to co-exist. At conclusion, people need to be able to say what they believe is wrong too, or else it will remain uncorrected.
:-)
So basically, everything is going okay.
- Steeltoe
Funcom is a norwegian company under norwegian law. IANAL, but maybe this means they have to abide by this to foreigners too? Worth looking into anyways.
- Steeltoe
No, giving them a break _justifies_ their money-grubbing tactics. As long as people tolerate being slapped for spending money on buggy software, there'll be no cure. That's why people should consider returning AO. If Funcom can't handle a full release, they shouldn't expect any money either. If not enough hardware is the problem, why don't they start in the small? If too many bugs is the problems, why don't they test enough (I signed up)? If too cheap investors are the problem, they should bite over less - not make a fully MMORPG with its tons of quirks and problems. Somebody f*cked up, and the bill as usual goes to the paying public. Wake up!
- Steeltoe
Along with gazillion other users I got an email that I was now accepted as a beta4 tester. It took me 10 days to finally get the CD from BURNADISC. The delivery can be made faster, but I didn't feel like burning more than $10 just for being a beta tester.
/., there is a norwegian law that you can RETURN FOR A FULL REFUND anything you buy, as long as it's not over counter in a store (varying from 10 days to 3 months after purchase if you never received an obligatory refund-note). You don't even have to tell why! Don't support buggy software any longer! Repeat after me: It's NOT your fault you bought buggy software. They're not your bugs, and you should demand quality from your purchases. Return buggy software products NOW.
Well, after those 10 days they had gone Gold. Wow. Utter sleaziness from their part is it not? I guess they went out of cash, unless they really LIKE shooting themselves in the foot. Why did they send the email in the first place? I had no real chance at becoming a beta tester at all. I just wanted to try it out, see what it was.
For those who actually bought this product: As I've mentioned earlier on
- Steeltoe
If Linux is trademarked, it's a waste of money since it's already dilluted.
- Steeltoe
You didn't really want to follow my argument. Yes, you can compare oranges with apples but they're still two different fruits. So is Ruby and Haskell. You can be biased in favour of one of the types, but that doesn't say much about the specific languages. You can't force a user to switch and expect him to be happy and productive. It's a bigger shift in paradigm for him/her. Of course you lack something in imperative languages that exist in functional ones, but that tune goes the other way too. Personally I hope functional and symbolic languages will lead the way of the future. However, pure imperative forms will continue to be necessary too.
:P
Mozard-Oz is one such language that includes pretty much about everything. It's too heavy for me to understand based on their web-pages, but from what I could gather it looks pretty impressive. That doesn't mean it'll become the One language though, because people like me are too dumb to understand it
- Steeltoe
Exactly! Of course geeks don't want to have sex as much as they want to program, so that's probably the reasoning behind it.
- Steeltoe
Ruby isn't like Java, which forces you to define classes. If you like, you can quickly hack together as many procedural scripts you like or skip procedures altogether. It's ideal for those small, straight-forward batch-jobs.
Yes, Ruby is still a "pure OO" language. The reason it may seem procedural at times is that every code you write is inside a bigger object-context. So when you call functions, they're really member-methods. You just skip context-handling for convenience. The default context for the program code is the Object object, which makes the defined methods global.
- Steeltoe
Why compare Ruby with Haskell when they're two completely different types of programming languages? One is imperative while the other is functional. It's like saying Prolog (logical) is better than C (procedural). Different languages for different jobs and all that. Just because a language is XXXX, doesn't mean it doesn't have its merit or place to-be.
- Steeltoe
Most people learn Ruby in one or two days. Why do I have the feeling you don't have a clue what you're talking about? Not to mention the moderation *cough, cough*
- Steeltoe
You should rewrite #3 to:
:-)
3) Threads - With perl you actually have to compile a special threaded version. Ruby threads work - even on DOS.
Cheers!
- Steeltoe
No he wasn't. Avoiding side-effects is very commendable. I like Ruby, even its way with attributes. So the better solution to Ruby is to add a general constraint-package that can guarantee restrictions in code. Kind of like safelevel ($SAFE), but not so hackish.
Ruby is powerful, sometimes too powerful to work with in large groups or utilizing 3rd party code.
- Steeltoe
Ruby supports including many separate modules into one class (mixins). This makes it much more simpler and powerful than multiple inheritance, because you can make classes with THEIR OWN range of module-ancestors by mixing-in many modules. This eliminates problems where a baseclass inherits something you don't want. I believe Ruby borrows this feature from Eiffel, I'm not confidently sure though.
;)
Someone once copied a past argument of mine about this onto the news group (which is 110% okay by me). I wish someone could explore benefits of such programming more in-depth and publish their results. I have strong belief this is the way of the future for OO, instead of the cludges of multiple inheritance. I also believe the technique can be developed further than now available in Ruby. Those who use it, speak up and publish!
- Steeltoe
The problem with the 'background task' argument is that breaking RC5 is not necessarily the best use to which those cycles can be put.
The nature of the program is that it will prioritize itself down if other programs are in use. On this, the 'best use' argument falls apart. Effectively, the only argument against this on the task-level is wear-out of the CPU. A very tough point to prove damages from. People actually use these sort of programs to "burn in" new hardware. And he WAS administering the computer.
Is it a federal offence to win prizes using a browser at work too now? A fitting symbolic punishment would be to fine him the prize money, since it's not that much. If I were his superior I would just ask him to uninstall it and not install such programs anymore (he was probably underpaid anyways). Talking often works wonders, maybe they should try that next time. Some people just take life too seriously, and then they die.
- Steeltoe
15 years of buttfucking will teach him not to do criminal activities like this again. When he gets out he will be in-debted without any way to get a decent job. Serves him right.
On a serious note, I fully agree with you. This is not even criminal. At most he should be FINED, not FIRED. This case most likely stems from ignorance and fear in the administration of the university.
Destroying an innocent life, even attempting it, sounds immoral to me, installing an application widely used throughout the IT-sector not necessarily true. He was an admin, probably with root password. They left it up to him to administer the network. It was his call, unless they say he can't do it but their rules gave him that power by being too vague. The administration behind this should be fired instead. Obviously they don't have common sense and good humour. They should be in no position to do what they did.
- Steeltoe
Oh, *boohooo* you're living in an evil ignorant society, you can't do anything about it and we should all feel sorry for you and ourselves. We're all doomed. *waaaaaaa*
Wake up, wipe off your tears and don't victimize yourself. Even playing quake is more risk to security and waste more bandwidth. You don't fire someone even for that. You set up rules and talk to the person(s) involved. If you should be fired for rules that wasn't written, how are you supposed to be doing your work? Sometimes even the best sysadmin needs password cracking tools, or educate himself in those areas. And please spare us for your crocodile tears.
- Steeltoe
Everyone involved was making money on IPOs and all that jazz,
You're right, because you don't make any money before you sell a share. Whoever bought shares without profit, lost on the IT-craze. They got suckered in. However, that's their own fault for being greedy.
- Steeltoe
Often when the stockmarket starts to get predictable in some way, there's a force in it looking for randominity. The knowledge of a "perfect" computer playing on the stock-market, could disrupt the market into even more illogical ups and downs than it already has. Which is not good for the market of course.
As it is now, everytime an analyst predict upgoing trends on a stock, it's time to sell and vice versa. Of course they use this to sell their own because of it. However, as closed-analysis becomes even more advanced the stocks will seem even more random. So the stockmarket is reduced to a pure gambling pot. What this could do is reduce the incentive for people to gamble on it, slowing down the economy.
Analytical reports are designed to manipulate the market. This is unfortunate because the people being suckered in, as always, are of course the small-time gamblers. It's also unfortunate because what should drive the market is knowledge of good companies to invest in, not obscure ideas in an analysts mind or manipulation to get an unfair advantage. So the system is already cracking up as it is, affecting the commercial psyche. Companies are met with unreasonable expectations every single year, some develop obscure bussinessplans or decides to play hard ball with their customers because they need all the economic growth they can possibly grab.
- Steeltoe
Well, it's impossible to tell sarcasm from ignorance in a text-only medium. Unless you start to use smileys or other hints.
- Steeltoe