Now six words: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.
I don't have an iPod. And I never will. Because it cannot do the simple trick of playing one song immediately after another that CD players have been managing for two decades now, and records for decades before that.
And thus The Beatles will never sound correct.
Neither will, I'm sure, other albums. Those were just on the top of my head.
Oh, yes, I know of the 'Make it one long song' trick. Um, no. Apple should stop focusing on style and features and start making a MP3 player that works correctly. I don't want to make one long song, I don't care if I can make a cuesheet, I simply want a player that does not pause between songs. My computer can do it fine.
And, no, I'm not talking about the ripping problem with MP3s. I don't even rip to MP3s, I rip to FLAC, and I know enough to use an MP3 encoder that puts the exact ending time. iPod is not gapless, period.
And, no, 'crossfade' does not count. Although it blows my mind that some players can start one song during another one, but not exactly at the end of it. WTF?
The Rio Karma is one of the few players that actually does gapless playback. I was going to wait to see what Rio came out with next, and if it was gapless, but apparently not anymore. Time to start ebaying for a Karma, I guess.
What I'd really like is one of those flash players that a USB memory stick plugs into, can read FLAC, Ogg, and of course mp3s, and is gapless. It's be a bonus if it didn't come with memory, because then I could use whatever I had on hand, or buy one the size I wanted. (Or, hell, I have a laptop drive and an IDE to USB converter. That would rock in my car, although I'd clearly need a power supply. I doubt one of those converters set to 5 volts would be clean enough power.)
Then, assuming you know how to write PHP code, throw away the php. It's not that good. It can't handle fields being added to the database. But writing php for database manipulation is trivial, so I'll assume that's what you're already doing.
Anyway, what you need from 'vmail' is the 'maintain' perl script. It's fairly easy to understand. Basically, you want a 'new' table in your database with new email addresses, a 'deleted' one for deleted addresses, and a 'moved' one for moved emails. So in addition to editing your main mail table, you also put email addresses in those tables when those things need to happen.
The script pulls these out of each table and does the things. It doesn't mess with your main table at all.
Now, the perl script needs to turn that email address into a directory. It starts out as hostname.dom/u/user/ from user@hostname.dom, but you can change that however you want with a bit of perl study.
Or, instead of putting the email address in the tables, you can just put the directories, and tell it not to try to make that into a directory at all. That's probably simplier if you already have the rest of the system set up with other pathnames, and you don't know perl.
I experimented with cgi scripts and whatnot, but this was much easier. You can either put in cron to run every minute or so, or you if it is important updates happen instantly, you can make it suid and run it from a cgi script or from php.
As an added bonus, that script is so nicely written you can make other tables and make other things happen. It's a nice way to keep restrictive permissions on your webserver, but have nice, protected php pages that can make 'requests' that get executed at certain times.
I have a copy of it that lets people change users listed in.htaccess files, although I don't currently have an interface to it. And I have one that will create apache config files and empty directories with the right permissions, and then restarts the web server, for when domains get added.
Man, either the astroturfs are out in force, or no one here can read. This is the second message that says 'Everything might work together or might not, who knows? Commercial solutions tend to be easier.' (And explictly says 'I'm an OSS fan'. What, you guys got the same script?)
Well, let's look at what software he's talking about.
Postfix.
SQLGrey: A policy server for postfix (In fact, it won't work with anything else. 'Policy servers' are a postfix invention, designed to provide half of the functions of a sendmail milter without being, you know, so stupid.)
DomainKeys for Postfix: A postfix content filter. Interestingly, this might work with other servers, as it's just talking SMTP on local socket. Regardless, it's designed for postfix.
Postfix Admin: Nuff said.
The two last, remaining piece of software, courier-imap and maildrop, are admittedly not designed to work 'with' postfix. They are, however, designed to work with each other, as they are both from the 'courier' mailserver package.
And courier-imap doesn't interact with postfix in any way, shape, or form. maildrop puts the files somewhere, courier-imap picks them up.
So that leaves the postfix to maildrop interaction as the only interaction between 'things that haven't been tested to work together' in the entire system.
And, um, the interaction is postfix running 'maildrop email_address' and then catting the mail message, asking maildrop to deliver it. It's fairly trivial to set up, it's adding two lines to postfix's config. In fact, I think that one of those line are already there, you just have to uncomment. There are dozens of walkthroughs, and they are about two screens long, and they include installation and config. In fact, maildrop is the recommended delivery agent of postfix if you have a system too complicated for it to handle.
That's not to say things can't be complicated to set up. Setting up a mysql postfix with maildrop and courier-imap can be tricky. How do I know? I've done it. (Although I have recently removed maildrop, as the 'virtual' delivery agent in postfix has gotten much better.)
But it's not tricky because 'things might not work together'. At all. The trick is getting postfix to talk sql. And maildrop to talk sql. And courier to talk sql. And sasl to talk sql. And something to run in the background actually making mailboxes you put in your SQL.
You have to do more configuring, in more places, with seperate OSS packages, and I'll be the first to admit it. But you don't have to configure the mail software listed to 'talk to each other', mail software is damn good at following standards in interaction, especially the newer stuff. You have a SMTP server, it hands mail off to a delivery agent in a trival way, this delivery agent puts the mail somewhere, and the pop3/imap server locates said mail. It's not rocket science. You can use pretty much any software at any stage of that.
Now, taking you at your word, you should have known this. Everyone who has an opinion of OSS mail servers should know this. You pick qmail/postfix/courier-smtp/sendmail/exim/smtp_serv er, you pick maildrop/procmail/delivery_agent, and you pick courier-imap/dovecot/pop_server, and they all magically Do The Right Thing, assuming that you've decided beforehand where the mail will go and in what format. In fact, you can switch any of those things, usually on the fly, and the others keep working, although switching smtp servers on the fly is a good way to kill yourself.
That's not a large bladder. That's knowing a simple fact: Your bladder does not get full if you do not drink things.
And hence, if you do not drink during the movie, and do not drink for, oh, fifteen minutes before the movie, (Long enough for it to filter through your stomach.) and urinate when you walk into the theater, you know what?
The problem isn't too many previews. The problem is them starting the previews when the movie is supposed to start.
What they need to do is say 'This time is the start of the movie. We will be showing previews for the 5 minutes before.'
Or, heck, the 30 minutes before. I might show up 30 minutes early if I was bored, and watch a preview for every movie coming out in the next two years. They could run eight hours of previews for all I care.
Actually, what they should do is have an 'arrival time', and advertise that, so people can keep operating as usual, but inform anyone who cares to listen that the movie starts exactly five munutes after that, and previews start roughly 10 minutes before that or whenever.
Fuck that. The minute they have intermissions I'm not going.
You bastards can learn to control your bladder like the rest of us, and stop drinking 48 ounces of liquid during the movie.
It's already bad enough you're constantly walking in and out. And many of you seem unable to grasp the simple concept that if you are have to pee more often than every two hours (You know, I don't have to pee more than four or five times a day, so that's like an average span of five hours.), you should sit on the aisle, on the side of the house that has an exit. Putting in a pause just for you goobers would make me never see a movie again.
Vibrate is not what you set cell phones to in the theater, unless you're willing to just walk out when it goes off.
I've seen too many people who think setting it vibrate means you're allowed to answer it in the theater. You are not. Just turn the damn thing off unless you're a doctor or your mother is on her deathbed. If a call isn't important enough that it makes you leave the theater, you shouldn't have answered it in the first place.
Honestly, people, we used to do without cell phones. You'd go hours without being reachable. If it's one of those few hours a week you need to be reachable, don't go and see a damn movie in the first place.
And, BTW, this include text messages. You're not allowed send text messages during movies. It seems like, logically, this would be okay, but almost all text messaging is accompanied with flashes of light, giggling, and whispering and showing your phone to your friends.
So, basically, do not turn the phone on vibrate. It seems like it would be fine, but it's too open to abuse. Don't mess with your damn cell phone at all. Turn it off, or on silent so it records missed calls, and forget about it.
If you want to do stuff while you're watching movies, watch them at a home. When you watch a movie, the only think you should be reacting to is the movie, or your friends reactions to the movie. I'm willing to put up with whispered 'Is that the guy that was in The X-Files?', but not 'Oh, Frank just broke up with Jessica' because you just got some damn text message.
There are obviously good episodes and bad episodes.
And at least two places where the show doesn't quite know where it's going, early season four and almost all of season six, where they are transitioning from not being in high school or Buffy not being dead, respectively. (Ironically, those two areas contain two of the best hours of TV ever aired, Hush and the musical.) It's probable you caught one of those seasons.
If you did, season six does not represent the show as a whole.;) The theme of that season was 'your own worst enemy is yourself', and damn if they didn't pull that one off.
And season four was just uneven at the start, thanks to the lack of the high school and Angel. Once Adam showed up it got a bit better.
If you want to get hooked on show, through, there's only one place to start: The first episode, Welcome to the Hellmouth, and watch all of season one. It's only 12 episodes, so that's like 9 hours, and what the hell else are you watching this summer?
Ignore the craptacular special effects, they get better, season one apparently had a special effects budget of 'Some guy I know named Murray who can do that kind of stuff', and put up with the craptacular David Boreanaz (Angel, aka the mysterious shadow advice giver man.) acting, he gets much much better.
And after you watch that, and then go out and buy season two, and then run out in a panic because you need to know what happened season three, you'll be invested in the show enough to wait for it to find its ground in season four to get to the amazing season five. And then you can't possible leave it as that, so you'll have to get season six, which you'll either like or dislike, but you'll go out and get seven.
But you want a quote? How about: "To read makes our speaking English good." or "Eww! Why is it that every conversation you people have has the word "corpse" in it?"
The only one I use regularly is: "Okay, at this point, you're abusing sarcasm."
But there are funs of great quotes from Buffy. Most of them make very little sense to use in real life: "Why go to all the trouble to dig up three girls only to chop them up and throw them away? It doesn't make any sense. Especially from a time management standpoint." or "If the apocalypse comes, beep me."
Firefly contains what Buffy and Angel fans love about the show.
However, if you actually tried those shows, and didn't like them, then Firefly probably does not contains what turned you off.
And that incidentally works the other way, too.
The key is that Whedon can write. He can write amazing characters and damn good plots, and he always has interesting ideas. And he knows how to pick actors, and great supporting writers. This is why he, himself, has fans, instead of just his shows. Joss Whedon could air sixty minutes of static, and I'd probably sit through the whole thing once, just because, in my experience, it'd be worth it.
The actual 'shows'...I dunno. He always takes really silly premises and makes them work. Sometimes people look at the premise and never start the show, in which case he says 'Good riddence'.
Sometimes people can't 'buy' the premise so they quit watching the show after an episode or two, and I think that's a shame, but understandable. You can't really get into a show if you constantly think it's a goofy idea.
But the premise is about the only thing people dislike about Buffy, Angel, or Firefly, and obviously doesn't translate between Buffy/Angel and Firefly, so if you disliked one check out the other anyway.
And, hell, you may find you like his stories so much you're willing to watch the other series. The premise ususally only sounds funny. You'll stop thinking the Buffy premise is 'funny' right around 'Prophecy Girl'.
Did you see the question mark at the end of the headline? Did you even read the linked site?
It's just two clips depicting Summer Glau in character.
What these clips probably are are things Joss used to convince people to let him make the movie, as he himself is in one and probably two of them.
And instead of viral marketing (Why the hell would people market on the damn Firefly and Summer Glau websites? We're seeing the movie.), it's probably just leaked.
Alternately, they're video Whedon isn't supposed to release, but the movie was supposed to be out a month ago and got pushed back to the end of next month, so he's probably bored. (This is the man who urged people to download the third season finale of Buffy when the WB didn't air it.)
But that isn't viral marketing. Viral marketing would be to come to place like, oh, slashdot, to advertise the movie by setting up a pretend contraversy about 'viral marketing', not secretly leaking videos to Firefly fans, who are all going to see the movie repeatedly.
I didn't mean the person I replied to didn't think it was a joke. I was agreeing with him that it was an old, unfunny joke, but also commenting that almost no one else seemed to realize that.
Although, really, if no one can recognize it, it can't be that old a joke.;)
Morality is not what society says is right and wrong. In fact, morality isn't what anyone says is right and wrong, or even what is right and wrong.
Morality is a system for choosing what is right and wrong. Or you can call it ethics.
As opposed to law, which is a system for choosing what is disallowed. (In Western legal systems, 'allowed' is the default.)
Or societial norms, which is what is expected and unexpected. (Oddly enough, there does not appear to be a name for the system that results in that, unless you want to call it 'society', but that's confusing.)
All these things say you 'should' do something, and, more importantly, you shouldn't do something else.
All of them have the idea that some bad things are worse than other bad things. (Some moralities based on religion assert that all wrongs are equal, but they don't appear to actually believe that.)
And in some places, the same action might overlap, like killing people is a fairly serious crime in all countries, pretty immoral in most systems of ethics, and not something that society tends to approve of...
...or is it? Dueling has been legal and society has tolerated it, sometimes at the same time, sometimes in direct opposition to each other. There are states in the US where it is still legal to duel at certain times and places, to this day. And laws allowing dueling appeared after it become socially accpetable.
And sure, you're trying to kill someone, but he's agreed to it, in exchange for you agreeing he can try to kill you. My system of moral throws up a red flag because of the, you know, killing, but I have to go with the ultimate 'Two adults interacting in a consensual manner is none of my business.' rule.
But other systems of ethics might have problems with.
So I can state that every single combination of dueling being moral/legal/tolerated in polite society, or the exact opposite, has happened.
Not that I care about dueling, I'm just trying to make a point that these three things are not the same thing. Society always decides societal norms. (In fact, that's really all 'society' is, what everyone does. There is no society besides 'the behavior of a group of people'.)
And society is supposed to decide the laws, in a democracy, but that appears to be working rather poorly at the moment.
It doesn't decide morality at all. It might influence which system of morality a certain person follows, but that doesn't mean it, itself, has decided what is right and wrong.
Now, like I said, it's possible to treat morality as some sort of supercategory and consider 'laws' and 'this particular society's behavior' as 'a moral code'. But way leads to crazy conclusions like it being immoral for people to get on an elevator before everyone gets off or assess their taxes using table R-4 instead of R-5.
But moral codes are supposed to be self-consistent (Even if the consistency is 'God says to not to all this.'.), and neither societal norms or laws reach anywhere near that level. They're just a bunch of random rules.
And that would give everyone three different moral codes, which they follow at completely random times. One of which can be changed unknowningly by third parties or when they walk into another county (Didn't you get the memo? Over there, you're a good person if you donate time to charity, but past this imaginary line you're supposed to donate money instead.), and another is just 'the average behavior of everyone else'. (Ethically, how many times should I go out to see movies this summer? Three? Four? What if I don't have 2.4 children?)
Oh, hey, you want to discuss the impact of self-awareness on QM, I have no beef with that, although I'm partial to the 'transactional' interpetation myself.
It's just in every discussion about time travel, some person will immediately leap in and say 'I don't believe in time travel, because free will means I can make any decision I want.'. So I tend to get snappy at those people.
There are plenty of good reasons to doubt time travel could happen. 'Free will' just ain't one of them.
BTW, on that topic, there's a damn interesting story, I forget what it says, that argues that collapasing the waveform is not only a function that happens in the human brain, but it evolved there and other beings do not have it. So the very first time we look at the heavens, we collapses huge amounts of the sky. Eventually aliens get so pissed at us look at them and removing possiblities they put our solar system in a giant sphere, which I think is the name of the book.
At the same time as all this, someone invents 'brain software' (They have neural programming.) that disables this ability for short periods of time, so the possessor can do almost anything that's possible, no matter how unlikely, because they will be a probability blur until they succeed or fail, and they just 'pick' the path that lead to success. And this eventually starts undermining 'reality'.
Kids not hiding the fact they know more than adults.
contempt for the rules
Refuses to play along with busywork that is high school for intelligent kids.
lacking respect
Thinks some teachers are a bunch of fools. (This is more worrying than thinking all teachers are fools. When a student thinks all teachers are fools, they are clearly rebels. When a rather intelligent kid thinks some teachers are fools and some aren't, the obvious question gets raised about whether he is correct.)
checked before it gets out of hand
For some reason, each generation of almost-adults seems to come up with exactly the same misbehavior when chaffing at arbitrary limits.
Solution? Continue the beatings until morale improves.
build on their peers' success
The same misbehavior, except, of course, when they learn from the previous generation. We must remove all learning and history from schools, proto.
dire consequences
We cannot stop actual misbehavior in school, because punishing those people doesn't work, as they don't care. However, we can punish the good kids harder for slight violations.
Kids think they can do anything they want until they reach 18
That's right! They need to learn there are consequences to chatting with friends and downloading porn when they are under 18, just like there will be when they go out into the real world.
I don't even care if they broke the exact law they are being charged with at this point...
Ah, yes. This is, BTW, called vengeance, not justice. It's a very sad and pathetic vengeance, because you've never been harmed in the slightest by these kids, but it's vengeance nevertheless. MUST HURT THE BAD PEOPLE!
Society in fact dictates morality - look at a nice place called Utah where you can't get things like porn in the state because the majority has said "no".
I didn't say society didn't dictate morality. (Although they don't.) I said the laws don't dictate morality.
And I also explicitly said that societal boundardies (Which is not the same as morality.) have almost nothing to do with the law. Bringing up a single exception to that is a bit silly, because I did say 'almost'. Laws are based on hypothetical 'damage to society', not societal boundaries.
There are 'victimless crimes', which are, indeed, based on societal norms, and these really consist of exactly two things. (Drugs and prostitution/nudity/porn.) And what I called 'good planning' laws, where it's best if we all do the same thing, like drive on the right, which are based on societal norms, but, ironically for you, clearly are not defining morality, unless you want to assert the English are immoral for driving on the left.
And I think you need to read that link you provided. It quite clearly says that societal norms are normally not laws. Just the important ones, the ones that threaten society, which is, incidentally, exactly what I said. I think you are failing to grasp just how many societal norms there are, like sleeping in a bed that's two feet off the ground, and how few laws there are in comparision. Almost everything we do every day is due to societal norms, and very little of it interacts with the law in any way.
And I think you need to read Morality yet to discover the difference between it and 'Mores'.
However, if you have been taught nonsensical things as 'morals', like most people have, feel free to read 'morals' as 'ethics' and 'immoral' as 'unethical', if that helps. I'll start using those terms. I tend to assume everyone else has some logical system they refer to as 'morals', and I forget a good deal of people have just been taught 'Do this' and 'Don't do that' and assume that's some sort of morality. Morality isn't what you should and shouldn't do, it's why you should and shouldn't do things.
You don't get the fact that society does pick what is okay, and you have been advocating that what these kids did when breaking the _rules_ was okay - it was _moral_ to have broken them (right?). You have even proven my point the society will always dictate the law based on their system of beliefs, their taboos and their _morality_.
You're confusing two completely unrelated things, and using the word 'okay' for some reason. By 'okay' I will assume you mean 'acceptable by society'.
Society does, in fact, choose what is acceptable to it. (Erm, people in society, that is.) However, calling the administration of the school 'society' seems to be pushing it a bit. As far as we know, they are the only ones who objected to this. You can't convince me society cares about people getting around security lockout others have put on computers in their possession just by asserting so, you're going to need some documentation. (And I recommend you go elsewhere, as this crowd does not agree.) Come back when you have some polling data.
However, that has nothing to do with the law, which choses what is allowable, and incidentally, is what people are complaining about.
It does, you've shown that with your made up fact that things are that much different from 200 years ago. We've changed slavery and treated women _differently_ but for the most part we still base the law and social norms on what we think is right as a whole. That is what a democracy/republic does, does
Like I said, I've already lost you - you can't see the point of restraint even in the "treats" you give yourself. You act as if changing something small, that no one else will notice, will impact your entire life or the things you treat yourself with you "deserve".
This is, bluntly, a total fucking lie. Nothing I said can possible be read to indicate that. All I said was that there wasn't much I do for myself, and certainly nothing I do 'every day', except things I need to do.
I am a person who is perfectly happy to do basically nothing all day. My recreation is watching maybe 3 hours of TV a week or reading a book. Sometimes I play Freecell or some old adventure game. To treat myself, I get a book and go and read it in an all-you-can-eat food place. Or see a movie at the 4 dollar theater.
And, of course, I sometimes get involved with arguing with idiots on slashdot during slow workdays.
Oooo. How hedonistic of me. See, you just assumed I was some bad boy running around breaking the rules.
I bet you are one of those people who watch anthropology documentaries and say things like "Why the fuck don't those people just stop doing XXXX" or "They believe in XXXX or practice XXX - What the hell is wrong with them?".... "Why don't they just move to the United States and go to Wal-Mart...."
I say that? You appear to be the one thinking that following the rules is so damn important. Or maybe you honestly think society makes morals, and thus maybe you're getting worked up over women trying to get the right to vote in some forgotten African nation. How dare they speak up, that's against the law!
I personally think it's rather absurd that you think I'm condemning random people, when you're the only person who's condemned anyone's actions as immoral.
I doubt you honestly think that, but who knows what you think? You can arrive at almost any system of morality if you've decided that laws create morality, because we have, and have had, so many different and conflicting systems of laws. Maybe you're in the 'trial by ordeal' group or something. There's no way to know.
Me, I couldn't care less what other people do as long as it doesn't harm me or others. That's the morality I decided on as a teenager, and it hasn't steered me wrong.
And that lack of harm includes children getting around pointless restrictions places on them. If they're harming anyone, it's themselves. Yes, we need to protect kids from themselves, but I think high schoolers are right when they assume privately chatting with the friends and downloading porn isn't going to cause any sort of major damage to themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Another two words: Abbey Road.
Now six words: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.
I don't have an iPod. And I never will. Because it cannot do the simple trick of playing one song immediately after another that CD players have been managing for two decades now, and records for decades before that.
And thus The Beatles will never sound correct.
Neither will, I'm sure, other albums. Those were just on the top of my head.
Oh, yes, I know of the 'Make it one long song' trick. Um, no. Apple should stop focusing on style and features and start making a MP3 player that works correctly. I don't want to make one long song, I don't care if I can make a cuesheet, I simply want a player that does not pause between songs. My computer can do it fine.
And, no, I'm not talking about the ripping problem with MP3s. I don't even rip to MP3s, I rip to FLAC, and I know enough to use an MP3 encoder that puts the exact ending time. iPod is not gapless, period.
And, no, 'crossfade' does not count. Although it blows my mind that some players can start one song during another one, but not exactly at the end of it. WTF?
The Rio Karma is one of the few players that actually does gapless playback. I was going to wait to see what Rio came out with next, and if it was gapless, but apparently not anymore. Time to start ebaying for a Karma, I guess.
What I'd really like is one of those flash players that a USB memory stick plugs into, can read FLAC, Ogg, and of course mp3s, and is gapless. It's be a bonus if it didn't come with memory, because then I could use whatever I had on hand, or buy one the size I wanted. (Or, hell, I have a laptop drive and an IDE to USB converter. That would rock in my car, although I'd clearly need a power supply. I doubt one of those converters set to 5 volts would be clean enough power.)
Then, assuming you know how to write PHP code, throw away the php. It's not that good. It can't handle fields being added to the database. But writing php for database manipulation is trivial, so I'll assume that's what you're already doing.
Anyway, what you need from 'vmail' is the 'maintain' perl script. It's fairly easy to understand. Basically, you want a 'new' table in your database with new email addresses, a 'deleted' one for deleted addresses, and a 'moved' one for moved emails. So in addition to editing your main mail table, you also put email addresses in those tables when those things need to happen.
The script pulls these out of each table and does the things. It doesn't mess with your main table at all.
Now, the perl script needs to turn that email address into a directory. It starts out as hostname.dom/u/user/ from user@hostname.dom, but you can change that however you want with a bit of perl study.
Or, instead of putting the email address in the tables, you can just put the directories, and tell it not to try to make that into a directory at all. That's probably simplier if you already have the rest of the system set up with other pathnames, and you don't know perl.
I experimented with cgi scripts and whatnot, but this was much easier. You can either put in cron to run every minute or so, or you if it is important updates happen instantly, you can make it suid and run it from a cgi script or from php.
As an added bonus, that script is so nicely written you can make other tables and make other things happen. It's a nice way to keep restrictive permissions on your webserver, but have nice, protected php pages that can make 'requests' that get executed at certain times.
I have a copy of it that lets people change users listed in .htaccess files, although I don't currently have an interface to it. And I have one that will create apache config files and empty directories with the right permissions, and then restarts the web server, for when domains get added.
Well, let's look at what software he's talking about.
Postfix.
SQLGrey: A policy server for postfix (In fact, it won't work with anything else. 'Policy servers' are a postfix invention, designed to provide half of the functions of a sendmail milter without being, you know, so stupid.)
DomainKeys for Postfix: A postfix content filter. Interestingly, this might work with other servers, as it's just talking SMTP on local socket. Regardless, it's designed for postfix.
Postfix Admin: Nuff said.
The two last, remaining piece of software, courier-imap and maildrop, are admittedly not designed to work 'with' postfix. They are, however, designed to work with each other, as they are both from the 'courier' mailserver package.
And courier-imap doesn't interact with postfix in any way, shape, or form. maildrop puts the files somewhere, courier-imap picks them up.
So that leaves the postfix to maildrop interaction as the only interaction between 'things that haven't been tested to work together' in the entire system.
And, um, the interaction is postfix running 'maildrop email_address' and then catting the mail message, asking maildrop to deliver it. It's fairly trivial to set up, it's adding two lines to postfix's config. In fact, I think that one of those line are already there, you just have to uncomment. There are dozens of walkthroughs, and they are about two screens long, and they include installation and config. In fact, maildrop is the recommended delivery agent of postfix if you have a system too complicated for it to handle.
That's not to say things can't be complicated to set up. Setting up a mysql postfix with maildrop and courier-imap can be tricky. How do I know? I've done it. (Although I have recently removed maildrop, as the 'virtual' delivery agent in postfix has gotten much better.)
But it's not tricky because 'things might not work together'. At all. The trick is getting postfix to talk sql. And maildrop to talk sql. And courier to talk sql. And sasl to talk sql. And something to run in the background actually making mailboxes you put in your SQL.
You have to do more configuring, in more places, with seperate OSS packages, and I'll be the first to admit it. But you don't have to configure the mail software listed to 'talk to each other', mail software is damn good at following standards in interaction, especially the newer stuff. You have a SMTP server, it hands mail off to a delivery agent in a trival way, this delivery agent puts the mail somewhere, and the pop3/imap server locates said mail. It's not rocket science. You can use pretty much any software at any stage of that.
Now, taking you at your word, you should have known this. Everyone who has an opinion of OSS mail servers should know this. You pick qmail/postfix/courier-smtp/sendmail/exim/smtp_serv er, you pick maildrop/procmail/delivery_agent, and you pick courier-imap/dovecot/pop_server, and they all magically Do The Right Thing, assuming that you've decided beforehand where the mail will go and in what format. In fact, you can switch any of those things, usually on the fly, and the others keep working, although switching smtp servers on the fly is a good way to kill yourself.
And hence, if you do not drink during the movie, and do not drink for, oh, fifteen minutes before the movie, (Long enough for it to filter through your stomach.) and urinate when you walk into the theater, you know what?
You won't have to pee during the movie.
It's amazing how that works.
It was 'funny once' instead 'funny always', but it was worth the 6 dollars I paid for it.
What they need to do is say 'This time is the start of the movie. We will be showing previews for the 5 minutes before.'
Or, heck, the 30 minutes before. I might show up 30 minutes early if I was bored, and watch a preview for every movie coming out in the next two years. They could run eight hours of previews for all I care.
Actually, what they should do is have an 'arrival time', and advertise that, so people can keep operating as usual, but inform anyone who cares to listen that the movie starts exactly five munutes after that, and previews start roughly 10 minutes before that or whenever.
Fuck that. The minute they have intermissions I'm not going.
You bastards can learn to control your bladder like the rest of us, and stop drinking 48 ounces of liquid during the movie.
It's already bad enough you're constantly walking in and out. And many of you seem unable to grasp the simple concept that if you are have to pee more often than every two hours (You know, I don't have to pee more than four or five times a day, so that's like an average span of five hours.), you should sit on the aisle, on the side of the house that has an exit. Putting in a pause just for you goobers would make me never see a movie again.
Vibrate is not what you set cell phones to in the theater, unless you're willing to just walk out when it goes off.
I've seen too many people who think setting it vibrate means you're allowed to answer it in the theater. You are not. Just turn the damn thing off unless you're a doctor or your mother is on her deathbed. If a call isn't important enough that it makes you leave the theater, you shouldn't have answered it in the first place.
Honestly, people, we used to do without cell phones. You'd go hours without being reachable. If it's one of those few hours a week you need to be reachable, don't go and see a damn movie in the first place.
And, BTW, this include text messages. You're not allowed send text messages during movies. It seems like, logically, this would be okay, but almost all text messaging is accompanied with flashes of light, giggling, and whispering and showing your phone to your friends.
So, basically, do not turn the phone on vibrate. It seems like it would be fine, but it's too open to abuse. Don't mess with your damn cell phone at all. Turn it off, or on silent so it records missed calls, and forget about it.
If you want to do stuff while you're watching movies, watch them at a home. When you watch a movie, the only think you should be reacting to is the movie, or your friends reactions to the movie. I'm willing to put up with whispered 'Is that the guy that was in The X-Files?', but not 'Oh, Frank just broke up with Jessica' because you just got some damn text message.
And at least two places where the show doesn't quite know where it's going, early season four and almost all of season six, where they are transitioning from not being in high school or Buffy not being dead, respectively. (Ironically, those two areas contain two of the best hours of TV ever aired, Hush and the musical.) It's probable you caught one of those seasons.
If you did, season six does not represent the show as a whole. ;) The theme of that season was 'your own worst enemy is yourself', and damn if they didn't pull that one off.
And season four was just uneven at the start, thanks to the lack of the high school and Angel. Once Adam showed up it got a bit better.
If you want to get hooked on show, through, there's only one place to start: The first episode, Welcome to the Hellmouth, and watch all of season one. It's only 12 episodes, so that's like 9 hours, and what the hell else are you watching this summer?
Ignore the craptacular special effects, they get better, season one apparently had a special effects budget of 'Some guy I know named Murray who can do that kind of stuff', and put up with the craptacular David Boreanaz (Angel, aka the mysterious shadow advice giver man.) acting, he gets much much better.
And after you watch that, and then go out and buy season two, and then run out in a panic because you need to know what happened season three, you'll be invested in the show enough to wait for it to find its ground in season four to get to the amazing season five. And then you can't possible leave it as that, so you'll have to get season six, which you'll either like or dislike, but you'll go out and get seven.
But you want a quote? How about: "To read makes our speaking English good." or "Eww! Why is it that every conversation you people have has the word "corpse" in it?"
The only one I use regularly is: "Okay, at this point, you're abusing sarcasm."
But there are funs of great quotes from Buffy. Most of them make very little sense to use in real life: "Why go to all the trouble to dig up three girls only to chop them up and throw them away? It doesn't make any sense. Especially from a time management standpoint." or "If the apocalypse comes, beep me."
'A happy', meaning 'a good feeling'.
'dusting' vampires. (Admittedly not incredibly use for for real life, but Buffy's where it came from.)
'pointy', the opposite of 'pointless'.
'What's the up?'
I am a Buffy fan, but read my post above.
WTF? You were expecting it to cure cancer or something?
However, if you actually tried those shows, and didn't like them, then Firefly probably does not contains what turned you off.
And that incidentally works the other way, too.
The key is that Whedon can write. He can write amazing characters and damn good plots, and he always has interesting ideas. And he knows how to pick actors, and great supporting writers. This is why he, himself, has fans, instead of just his shows. Joss Whedon could air sixty minutes of static, and I'd probably sit through the whole thing once, just because, in my experience, it'd be worth it.
The actual 'shows'...I dunno. He always takes really silly premises and makes them work. Sometimes people look at the premise and never start the show, in which case he says 'Good riddence'.
Sometimes people can't 'buy' the premise so they quit watching the show after an episode or two, and I think that's a shame, but understandable. You can't really get into a show if you constantly think it's a goofy idea.
But the premise is about the only thing people dislike about Buffy, Angel, or Firefly, and obviously doesn't translate between Buffy/Angel and Firefly, so if you disliked one check out the other anyway.
And, hell, you may find you like his stories so much you're willing to watch the other series. The premise ususally only sounds funny. You'll stop thinking the Buffy premise is 'funny' right around 'Prophecy Girl'.
Wait, crap, that's the other way around.
It's just two clips depicting Summer Glau in character.
What these clips probably are are things Joss used to convince people to let him make the movie, as he himself is in one and probably two of them.
And instead of viral marketing (Why the hell would people market on the damn Firefly and Summer Glau websites? We're seeing the movie.), it's probably just leaked.
Alternately, they're video Whedon isn't supposed to release, but the movie was supposed to be out a month ago and got pushed back to the end of next month, so he's probably bored. (This is the man who urged people to download the third season finale of Buffy when the WB didn't air it.)
But that isn't viral marketing. Viral marketing would be to come to place like, oh, slashdot, to advertise the movie by setting up a pretend contraversy about 'viral marketing', not secretly leaking videos to Firefly fans, who are all going to see the movie repeatedly.
Simple locate a person who has the Firefly DVDs, or purchase them yourself, and loan them to others.
You cannot convince people that Joss Whedon shows are worth watching by logic. Neither Buffy, Angel, or Firefly. People will go 'That sounds corny'.
All you can do is sit them down in front of the things, and let them watch.
Although, really, if no one can recognize it, it can't be that old a joke. ;)
Morality is a system for choosing what is right and wrong. Or you can call it ethics.
As opposed to law, which is a system for choosing what is disallowed. (In Western legal systems, 'allowed' is the default.)
Or societial norms, which is what is expected and unexpected. (Oddly enough, there does not appear to be a name for the system that results in that, unless you want to call it 'society', but that's confusing.)
All these things say you 'should' do something, and, more importantly, you shouldn't do something else.
All of them have the idea that some bad things are worse than other bad things. (Some moralities based on religion assert that all wrongs are equal, but they don't appear to actually believe that.)
And in some places, the same action might overlap, like killing people is a fairly serious crime in all countries, pretty immoral in most systems of ethics, and not something that society tends to approve of...
And sure, you're trying to kill someone, but he's agreed to it, in exchange for you agreeing he can try to kill you. My system of moral throws up a red flag because of the, you know, killing, but I have to go with the ultimate 'Two adults interacting in a consensual manner is none of my business.' rule.
But other systems of ethics might have problems with.
So I can state that every single combination of dueling being moral/legal/tolerated in polite society, or the exact opposite, has happened.
Not that I care about dueling, I'm just trying to make a point that these three things are not the same thing. Society always decides societal norms. (In fact, that's really all 'society' is, what everyone does. There is no society besides 'the behavior of a group of people'.)
And society is supposed to decide the laws, in a democracy, but that appears to be working rather poorly at the moment.
It doesn't decide morality at all. It might influence which system of morality a certain person follows, but that doesn't mean it, itself, has decided what is right and wrong.
Now, like I said, it's possible to treat morality as some sort of supercategory and consider 'laws' and 'this particular society's behavior' as 'a moral code'. But way leads to crazy conclusions like it being immoral for people to get on an elevator before everyone gets off or assess their taxes using table R-4 instead of R-5.
But moral codes are supposed to be self-consistent (Even if the consistency is 'God says to not to all this.'.), and neither societal norms or laws reach anywhere near that level. They're just a bunch of random rules.
And that would give everyone three different moral codes, which they follow at completely random times. One of which can be changed unknowningly by third parties or when they walk into another county (Didn't you get the memo? Over there, you're a good person if you donate time to charity, but past this imaginary line you're supposed to donate money instead.), and another is just 'the average behavior of everyone else'. (Ethically, how many times should I go out to see movies this summer? Three? Four? What if I don't have 2.4 children?)
What's really sad is half the replies don't seem to be grasping the fact it's a joke.
I think we should turn off the spam filtering of all people who think spam isn't a big deal.
It's just in every discussion about time travel, some person will immediately leap in and say 'I don't believe in time travel, because free will means I can make any decision I want.'. So I tend to get snappy at those people.
There are plenty of good reasons to doubt time travel could happen. 'Free will' just ain't one of them.
BTW, on that topic, there's a damn interesting story, I forget what it says, that argues that collapasing the waveform is not only a function that happens in the human brain, but it evolved there and other beings do not have it. So the very first time we look at the heavens, we collapses huge amounts of the sky. Eventually aliens get so pissed at us look at them and removing possiblities they put our solar system in a giant sphere, which I think is the name of the book.
At the same time as all this, someone invents 'brain software' (They have neural programming.) that disables this ability for short periods of time, so the possessor can do almost anything that's possible, no matter how unlikely, because they will be a probability blur until they succeed or fail, and they just 'pick' the path that lead to success. And this eventually starts undermining 'reality'.
adolescent arrogance
Kids not hiding the fact they know more than adults.
contempt for the rules
Refuses to play along with busywork that is high school for intelligent kids.
lacking respect
Thinks some teachers are a bunch of fools. (This is more worrying than thinking all teachers are fools. When a student thinks all teachers are fools, they are clearly rebels. When a rather intelligent kid thinks some teachers are fools and some aren't, the obvious question gets raised about whether he is correct.)
checked before it gets out of hand
For some reason, each generation of almost-adults seems to come up with exactly the same misbehavior when chaffing at arbitrary limits.
Solution? Continue the beatings until morale improves.
build on their peers' success
The same misbehavior, except, of course, when they learn from the previous generation. We must remove all learning and history from schools, proto.
dire consequences
We cannot stop actual misbehavior in school, because punishing those people doesn't work, as they don't care. However, we can punish the good kids harder for slight violations.
Kids think they can do anything they want until they reach 18
That's right! They need to learn there are consequences to chatting with friends and downloading porn when they are under 18, just like there will be when they go out into the real world.
Wait, what?
Damn. Almost had that one.
Ah, yes. This is, BTW, called vengeance, not justice. It's a very sad and pathetic vengeance, because you've never been harmed in the slightest by these kids, but it's vengeance nevertheless. MUST HURT THE BAD PEOPLE!
Society in fact dictates morality - look at a nice place called Utah where you can't get things like porn in the state because the majority has said "no".
I didn't say society didn't dictate morality. (Although they don't.) I said the laws don't dictate morality.
And I also explicitly said that societal boundardies (Which is not the same as morality.) have almost nothing to do with the law. Bringing up a single exception to that is a bit silly, because I did say 'almost'. Laws are based on hypothetical 'damage to society', not societal boundaries.
There are 'victimless crimes', which are, indeed, based on societal norms, and these really consist of exactly two things. (Drugs and prostitution/nudity/porn.) And what I called 'good planning' laws, where it's best if we all do the same thing, like drive on the right, which are based on societal norms, but, ironically for you, clearly are not defining morality, unless you want to assert the English are immoral for driving on the left.
And I think you need to read that link you provided. It quite clearly says that societal norms are normally not laws. Just the important ones, the ones that threaten society, which is, incidentally, exactly what I said. I think you are failing to grasp just how many societal norms there are, like sleeping in a bed that's two feet off the ground, and how few laws there are in comparision. Almost everything we do every day is due to societal norms, and very little of it interacts with the law in any way.
And I think you need to read Morality yet to discover the difference between it and 'Mores'.
However, if you have been taught nonsensical things as 'morals', like most people have, feel free to read 'morals' as 'ethics' and 'immoral' as 'unethical', if that helps. I'll start using those terms. I tend to assume everyone else has some logical system they refer to as 'morals', and I forget a good deal of people have just been taught 'Do this' and 'Don't do that' and assume that's some sort of morality. Morality isn't what you should and shouldn't do, it's why you should and shouldn't do things.
You don't get the fact that society does pick what is okay, and you have been advocating that what these kids did when breaking the _rules_ was okay - it was _moral_ to have broken them (right?). You have even proven my point the society will always dictate the law based on their system of beliefs, their taboos and their _morality_.
You're confusing two completely unrelated things, and using the word 'okay' for some reason. By 'okay' I will assume you mean 'acceptable by society'.
Society does, in fact, choose what is acceptable to it. (Erm, people in society, that is.) However, calling the administration of the school 'society' seems to be pushing it a bit. As far as we know, they are the only ones who objected to this. You can't convince me society cares about people getting around security lockout others have put on computers in their possession just by asserting so, you're going to need some documentation. (And I recommend you go elsewhere, as this crowd does not agree.) Come back when you have some polling data.
However, that has nothing to do with the law, which choses what is allowable, and incidentally, is what people are complaining about.
It does, you've shown that with your made up fact that things are that much different from 200 years ago. We've changed slavery and treated women _differently_ but for the most part we still base the law and social norms on what we think is right as a whole. That is what a democracy/republic does, does
This is, bluntly, a total fucking lie. Nothing I said can possible be read to indicate that. All I said was that there wasn't much I do for myself, and certainly nothing I do 'every day', except things I need to do.
I am a person who is perfectly happy to do basically nothing all day. My recreation is watching maybe 3 hours of TV a week or reading a book. Sometimes I play Freecell or some old adventure game. To treat myself, I get a book and go and read it in an all-you-can-eat food place. Or see a movie at the 4 dollar theater.
And, of course, I sometimes get involved with arguing with idiots on slashdot during slow workdays.
Oooo. How hedonistic of me. See, you just assumed I was some bad boy running around breaking the rules.
I bet you are one of those people who watch anthropology documentaries and say things like "Why the fuck don't those people just stop doing XXXX" or "They believe in XXXX or practice XXX - What the hell is wrong with them?" .... "Why don't they just move to the United States and go to Wal-Mart...."
I say that? You appear to be the one thinking that following the rules is so damn important. Or maybe you honestly think society makes morals, and thus maybe you're getting worked up over women trying to get the right to vote in some forgotten African nation. How dare they speak up, that's against the law!
I personally think it's rather absurd that you think I'm condemning random people, when you're the only person who's condemned anyone's actions as immoral.
I doubt you honestly think that, but who knows what you think? You can arrive at almost any system of morality if you've decided that laws create morality, because we have, and have had, so many different and conflicting systems of laws. Maybe you're in the 'trial by ordeal' group or something. There's no way to know.
Me, I couldn't care less what other people do as long as it doesn't harm me or others. That's the morality I decided on as a teenager, and it hasn't steered me wrong.
And that lack of harm includes children getting around pointless restrictions places on them. If they're harming anyone, it's themselves. Yes, we need to protect kids from themselves, but I think high schoolers are right when they assume privately chatting with the friends and downloading porn isn't going to cause any sort of major damage to themselves.