Though I haven't tried it (my Palm Pilots have never been network-connected), GEORDI looks like it's a pretty decent interface for administering Unix (and Unix-alike) systems remotely from a PDA. Barring that, I'd probably go for ssh, but I found text-based things (text adventures, mostly) to be very annoying on the Palm.
--Phil (Now I just need to stop dropping the things...)
Nothing you couldn't get with netstat/ps, but it gives all the info I need in one location. Make sure you run it as root -- normal users won't have enough access rights to see all the processes otherwise.
--Phil (I love jobs that let me indulge my paranoia)
You can look at my macros for spam classification. (Linked instead of posted directly because slashcode kept inserting unwanted spaces in them.)
With these, "S" will classify an email as spam. "H" will reclassify a false positive--it's designed to operate on an email that SpamAssassin has munged as spam and won't work on regular emails. I haven't bothered to write a macro to train regular emails as ham, though I probably should.
One of my friend owns a small shop and actually prices her goods at $x.95, taxes included. I asked her if its because it makes people think it's a dollar cheaper even though we all know it doesn't really fool anyone.
Another use I've seen for these sorts of prices is classification of inventory. e.g. $x.99 would be a normal item, $x.97 might be a sale item, $x.95 could be some other classification, and so on.
See, when you PGP encrypt some text, it is only possible to encrypt it to one person (one public key). That's just how it works, it's inherent in the encryption methods used; however, PGP and GPG get around this by duplicating the entire message for each public key that it is encrypted to.
Incorrect. When PGP or GnuPG encrypts a message with a public key, they really just encrypt the message with a symmetric cypher and a sufficiently long, random key. Then they encrypt the key with the public key. (The reason for this is that public key cryptography is much, much slower than symmetric key stuff.) So for sending to multiple recipients, all that needs to be added is some additional header data for each recipient.
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 212358 2003-02-16 13:01 original
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 90343 2003-02-16 13:02 one-recipient.gpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 90893 2003-02-16 13:04 three-recipients.gpg
A better solution would still be to encrypt the message with a particular public key for which the private key was widely available. Encrypting the message with Bruce Schneier's private key makes sense cryptographically, but I don't believe PGP and GnuPG support that sort of behavior.
As others have mentioned, disabling accounts is significantly better than deleting them. A very good paper on the process of dealing with the termination of a system administrator is Matthew Ringel and Tom Limoncelli's Adverse Termination Procedures.
--Phil (I highly recommend Limoncelli's other papers, too, especially "Deconstructing User Requests".)
With Palm and M$ equivalents, you have to use graffiti. Any handwriting is a fairly onerous chore. Also, you have to poke around on the screen to do searches and app navigation.
I'll disagree with you here. I find Graffiti to be a very usable interface. It certainly beats out the keyboarded PDAs that preceded it--fingers are not really meant for typing on keys that small. The Blackberrys' thumb-operated keyboards are an improvement, I think, but I feel that Graffiti is still better. I can scribble down a note pretty quickly with Graffiti and it feels more natural than typing on a QWERTY keyboard with my thumbs. (Note that I have used Graffiti for a while while I've only played with the Blackberrys on store display models--but I did pick up Graffiti pretty quickly, even with my horrid handwriting.)
I also don't think that either interface it terribly good for inputting massive quantities of text. This is where separate, full-size keyboards come into play. Palm has pretty portable folding keyboards. I don't know about Blackberrys.
I've been quite happy using Zinf as my Windows-based MP3 player. It's functional enough (i.e., it plays MP3s, but doesn't have all the extra stuff that WinAmp has, like a built-in web browser) and is GPLed.
I had noflushd installed on my laptop for a while. It not only spins the drives down (well, it tells hdparm to tell the drives...), it caches all filesystem writes. So, if your problem is things writing to the disk, noflushd will be of use to you.
I stopped using it because I put XFS on the disk. Journaling filesystems tend to bypass some of the kernel disk-writing procedures in order to make sure the journal is correct. If you're using a journaling filesystem, that may be the cause of your problems. I'm not sure there's any way around this, because the filesystem seemed to write things about every five or so minutes regardless of whether I was actually reading or writing to the disk.
Most of them have probably drifted on to other things. I suspect that part of the reason the UIDs are so high is because people drop by, create an account, and then never use it again. (The other reason, of course, is that there are a lot of people reading the site...)
Slashdot's also changed a bit since the days of user accounts. (And when the accounts were created, it had already gone through a lot of changes.) A lot more people post and comment on things, more stories get submitted (so repeats occur)... The site is now a lot bigger and has lost a lot of the imtimate feeling it had when it was small. That, I suspect has driven people away. I used to post pretty regularly, but my contribusions have been dropping off for some time. (I think I posted more before user accounts than after, for instance.) Nowadays, there's usually already someone who's said what I would have said so I don't need to post. It's also really burdensome to read all the other posts before saying things myself. I almost never make toplevel posts anymore.
Basically, I think many of those people aren't around because they were attracted to the Slashdot of the time, which doesn't exist anymore.
Like...Wow, you don't have to have talent to score a movie? That kind of perspective?
As another poster mentioned, the director rearranged the shots after Glass had written the music. Specifically, Glass got edited footage for the movie, split it into (IIRC) ~5 minute chunks and wrote the music for each chunk, matching the music to the events onscreen. Reggio then rearranged the shots, attempting to fit the the events to the mood of the music rather than its structure.
I think that the movie succeeded. I recently watched it, coming to it with absolutely no idea was it was, and I quite liked it. It has been described as a "stoner film", and, while I have no doubt that it would be entertaining while stoned, I thought it quite good while sober.
--Phil (Now to get around to watching the sequels.)
NetTime is a BSD-licensed NTP client for Windows. While NTP isn't exactly a high-priority thing for most end users, they (or at least my sisters do) like having their clock give the correct time. It's also pretty small (2MB), so it souldn't exactly be crowding other programs out.
And for those administering Windows desktops on a network, it's great. It can use NTP or just the standard Unix date service. I have it installed on every computer at work.
--Phil (I have to use Windows, but I can make it bearable.)
Sigh. If anti-virus companies truly are casting about for problems to hype, they should use some of the ones actually around and causing problems for people. Klez comes to mind. I know I'd be a bit happier if people didn't keep sending me Klez emails. Raising awareness of the thing would be a good step toward convincing people to use some anti-virus software so their computers would stop bothering me.
As pointed out in several posts to Bugtraq, yes, the actual bug is in X (probably in libXfont) but Mozilla is a program that retrieves untrusted data across a network and, as such, has a responsibility to reject or sanitize data that could cause problems. The old Internet maxim is, "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send," but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also do some sanity checking.
I'm probably an average admin. (Possibly below-average--I only admin a couple boxes at work and about five at home.) I found the book to be quite interesting. I learned far more about the underlying SSH protocol than I had known previously, as well as numerous other things like all of the possibilities available with RSA keys. (I've subsequently used RSA-key-based forced commands for a couple things at work.) Since reading the book through, I've referred back to it a number of times. I find it to be a handier reference than the man pages sometimes and the constant comparisons of OpenSSH, SSH1, and SSH2 are nice--most of the computers I deal with are OpenSSH, but there are a couple running SSH2.
Write an article with absurdly far-fetched ties to any sort of
relevance to the Slashdot community.
[text illegible]
Take over the world!
Seriously, this is an insult to the readers of Slashdot (or, at least,
me). I've long been a proponent of Rob and Jeff's freedom in choosing
topics for the site, but this is a bit much. (And, while it was Katz that
put this article up, I highly doubt that he did so without the knowledge
of Rob and Jeff.) All this article is is an advertisement for Katz's
newest book, with some tenuous ties to topics of interest to Slashdot
readers that Katz can point to and say, "See? It's on topic!".
Yeah, Slashdot's been going downhill, but I had hoped it would never
sink this low.
--Phil (Now sorry he ever voted to "keep the gasbag".)
I'm a person who has quite an interest in crypto and often a good understanding of the base concepts behind crypto systems, but I don't understand much of the math that goes into proofs like this. Thus, I'd like to put some questions out to those who are more experienced than I am.
First, does this work? Have people independently verified that DJB is correct? (I went looking for some peer review via Google and didn't turn up anything that looked conclusive.)
Secondly, what's vulnerable? As I understand it, what DJB has discovered is a more efficient method of factoring numbers (on custom hardware) such that keys three times longer can be factored in roughly the same time. RSA is based on the product of two relatively prime numbers, so it's vulnerable. Aren't most public key systems based on this principle, though? How vulnerable is, for example, DSA to this new factoring technique?
--Phil (This article went up yesterday; hope someone's still around to read my post...)
Tom Limoncelli presented a paper on this exact subject a few years ago. It's entitled Tricks You Can Do If Your Firewall Is a Bridge
and covers a number of useful things you can do with bridging firewalls.
--Phil (My firewall is just an OpenBSD box. I like it that way.)
Looking just at the aspects of data deletion on the hard disk (i.e. ignoring the problems arising when data is transmitted to other computers), the problems of irretrievably deleting data have long been known. Most filesystems' delete commands are, of course, trivially insecure, since, at most, they make a note that the disk sectors containing the file are no longer allocated. Even overwriting the data multiple times may not be sufficient. I believe Peter Gutmann's 1996 Usenix paper, Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory, is still one of the (if not the) authoritative references on the subject. Briefly, when a bit is altered on a disk, the previous bits leave their imprints on the new bit, and it is possible to look back through the layers of deletion for data. Furthermore, it is possible to do this (to a limited degree, but even so...) with relatively inexpensive equipment.
Gutmann then goes on to derive a set of patterns that are optimal for rendering deleted data irretrievable. GNU shred (part of the GNU fileutils) uses these patterns and is the recommended tool for secure deletion in a Unix environment.
Note, however, that shred has some limitations in that it assumes that, when writing data to a file, it is overwriting the old data. The info node notes that this is not the case for some filesystems, including some journaling filesystems. Also, modern hard drives may remap drive sectors on the fly if those sectors begin to fail, leaving the possibility for data to remain in the swapped-out sectors. The safest method is, as usual, complete destruction of the drive.
It's not that they wanted to reinvent itthat's a probelem; that would have been survivable. It's that info is just plain an abomination. It seems to be an "emacs everywhere" notion. It's a pain to navigate, counter-intuitive, and the type of thing that could only have come out of the emacs or redmond mentalities.
Indeed. I'm a heavy Emacs advocate, and I think that the FSF's info viewer sucks. A lot. Fortunately, there exists a program named pinfo
that browses info files in a very nice, lynxlike manner. I recommend it to anyone who needs to look at info files.
--Phil (And, for Debian users, just 'apt-get install pinfo')
Well, the Windows-supplied telnet client is icky. I highly recommend PuTTY for all of your Windows telnet and ssh needs.
Hrm. Well, except for MUDding, actually. A good MUD client really helps. I seem to recall that zMUD was a good Windows MUD client, though it might be shareware. (These days, my only interaction with Windows is supporting it at work; no call for MUD clients there, and I use tinyfugue under Linux at home.)
--Phil (One of these days I'm going to get around to turning tf into an IRC client, just for fun.)
Gee, I wish Slashdot would let me close the <TT> tag!
Erm, oops. So I had two <tt> tags at the top of my post and only one at the bottom. Preview was showing the monospaced font extending past my </tt>, galeon wasn't showing my the page source properly (it reloads the page to see the source--bad when on dynamically-generated pages), and </tt> isn't in the list of allowed HTML at the bottom. I jumped to a conclusion.
I think the original poster meant that READ does not preserve comments. This is a true remark, though the idea that it's "terrible" may be a little exaggerated.
That's not entirely true. While, strictly, comments are diregarded by the interpreter, many Lisp dialects have the conecpt of docstrings, where the first element of a function or structure is a string describing the object's purpose. For an example, let me steal some elisp code from ILISP:
;;;
(defun bridge-call-handler (handler proc string)
"Funcall HANDLER on PROC, STRING carefully. Error is caught if happens,
and user is signaled. State is put in bridge-last-failure. Returns t if
handler executed without error."
(let ((inhibit-quit nil)
(failed nil))
(condition-case err
(funcall handler proc string)
(error
(ding)
(setq failed t)
(message "bridge-handler \"%s\" failed %s (see bridge-last-failure)"
handler err)
(setq bridge-last-failure
(` ((funcall '(, handler) '(, proc) (, string))
"Caused: "
(, err))))))
(not failed)))
--Phil (Gee, I wish Slashdot would let me close the <TT> tag!)
I've never played System Shock 2, but I have memories of playing Doom
and Doom 2 late at night with headphones on and the soundtrack to 2001
playing. The 2001 soundtrack has some pretty eerie stuff on it, which
only intensifies the general vibe of walking around in the dark wondering
when the next monster is going to come around the corner at you.
--Phil (I was also younger and more easily frightened then, too.)
Slashdot Mirror
Though I haven't tried it (my Palm Pilots have never been network-connected), GEORDI looks like it's a pretty decent interface for administering Unix (and Unix-alike) systems remotely from a PDA. Barring that, I'd probably go for ssh, but I found text-based things (text adventures, mostly) to be very annoying on the Palm.
--Phil (Now I just need to stop dropping the things...)
Though more Linux-centric, I like
Nothing you couldn't get with netstat/ps, but it gives all the info I need in one location. Make sure you run it as root -- normal users won't have enough access rights to see all the processes otherwise.--Phil (I love jobs that let me indulge my paranoia)
You can look at my macros for spam classification. (Linked instead of posted directly because slashcode kept inserting unwanted spaces in them.)
With these, "S" will classify an email as spam. "H" will reclassify a false positive--it's designed to operate on an email that SpamAssassin has munged as spam and won't work on regular emails. I haven't bothered to write a macro to train regular emails as ham, though I probably should.
--Phil (Mutt Mafia member since 1998)Another use I've seen for these sorts of prices is classification of inventory. e.g. $x.99 would be a normal item, $x.97 might be a sale item, $x.95 could be some other classification, and so on.
--Phil (who automatically gives money to minimize change: $10.17 - $8.92 = $1.25)
Incorrect. When PGP or GnuPG encrypts a message with a public key, they really just encrypt the message with a symmetric cypher and a sufficiently long, random key. Then they encrypt the key with the public key. (The reason for this is that public key cryptography is much, much slower than symmetric key stuff.) So for sending to multiple recipients, all that needs to be added is some additional header data for each recipient.
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 212358 2003-02-16 13:01 original-rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 90343 2003-02-16 13:02 one-recipient.gpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil phil 90893 2003-02-16 13:04 three-recipients.gpg
A better solution would still be to encrypt the message with a particular public key for which the private key was widely available. Encrypting the message with Bruce Schneier's private key makes sense cryptographically, but I don't believe PGP and GnuPG support that sort of behavior.
--Phil (Far too much of a crypto geek)
As others have mentioned, disabling accounts is significantly better than deleting them. A very good paper on the process of dealing with the termination of a system administrator is Matthew Ringel and Tom Limoncelli's Adverse Termination Procedures.
--Phil (I highly recommend Limoncelli's other papers, too, especially "Deconstructing User Requests".)
I'll disagree with you here. I find Graffiti to be a very usable interface. It certainly beats out the keyboarded PDAs that preceded it--fingers are not really meant for typing on keys that small. The Blackberrys' thumb-operated keyboards are an improvement, I think, but I feel that Graffiti is still better. I can scribble down a note pretty quickly with Graffiti and it feels more natural than typing on a QWERTY keyboard with my thumbs. (Note that I have used Graffiti for a while while I've only played with the Blackberrys on store display models--but I did pick up Graffiti pretty quickly, even with my horrid handwriting.)
I also don't think that either interface it terribly good for inputting massive quantities of text. This is where separate, full-size keyboards come into play. Palm has pretty portable folding keyboards. I don't know about Blackberrys.
--Phil (Happy Palm user since 1999.)
I've been quite happy using Zinf as my Windows-based MP3 player. It's functional enough (i.e., it plays MP3s, but doesn't have all the extra stuff that WinAmp has, like a built-in web browser) and is GPLed.
--Phil (And in Linux I use moosic.)
I had noflushd installed on my laptop for a while. It not only spins the drives down (well, it tells hdparm to tell the drives...), it caches all filesystem writes. So, if your problem is things writing to the disk, noflushd will be of use to you.
I stopped using it because I put XFS on the disk. Journaling filesystems tend to bypass some of the kernel disk-writing procedures in order to make sure the journal is correct. If you're using a journaling filesystem, that may be the cause of your problems. I'm not sure there's any way around this, because the filesystem seemed to write things about every five or so minutes regardless of whether I was actually reading or writing to the disk.
--Phil (And now the laptop itself is dead. Sigh.)
Most of them have probably drifted on to other things. I suspect that part of the reason the UIDs are so high is because people drop by, create an account, and then never use it again. (The other reason, of course, is that there are a lot of people reading the site...)
Slashdot's also changed a bit since the days of user accounts. (And when the accounts were created, it had already gone through a lot of changes.) A lot more people post and comment on things, more stories get submitted (so repeats occur)... The site is now a lot bigger and has lost a lot of the imtimate feeling it had when it was small. That, I suspect has driven people away. I used to post pretty regularly, but my contribusions have been dropping off for some time. (I think I posted more before user accounts than after, for instance.) Nowadays, there's usually already someone who's said what I would have said so I don't need to post. It's also really burdensome to read all the other posts before saying things myself. I almost never make toplevel posts anymore.
Basically, I think many of those people aren't around because they were attracted to the Slashdot of the time, which doesn't exist anymore.
--Phil (And I still miss Meept.)
As another poster mentioned, the director rearranged the shots after Glass had written the music. Specifically, Glass got edited footage for the movie, split it into (IIRC) ~5 minute chunks and wrote the music for each chunk, matching the music to the events onscreen. Reggio then rearranged the shots, attempting to fit the the events to the mood of the music rather than its structure.
I think that the movie succeeded. I recently watched it, coming to it with absolutely no idea was it was, and I quite liked it. It has been described as a "stoner film", and, while I have no doubt that it would be entertaining while stoned, I thought it quite good while sober.
--Phil (Now to get around to watching the sequels.)
NetTime is a BSD-licensed NTP client for Windows. While NTP isn't exactly a high-priority thing for most end users, they (or at least my sisters do) like having their clock give the correct time. It's also pretty small (2MB), so it souldn't exactly be crowding other programs out.
And for those administering Windows desktops on a network, it's great. It can use NTP or just the standard Unix date service. I have it installed on every computer at work.
--Phil (I have to use Windows, but I can make it bearable.)
Die.net's approach seems like a good implementation of this.
--Phil (Sadly, I'm on a cable modem, so I don't have the bandwidth for this.) Gregory
Sigh. If anti-virus companies truly are casting about for problems to hype, they should use some of the ones actually around and causing problems for people. Klez comes to mind. I know I'd be a bit happier if people didn't keep sending me Klez emails. Raising awareness of the thing would be a good step toward convincing people to use some anti-virus software so their computers would stop bothering me.
Yep, it's a selfish argument. It's still true.
--Phil (And don't get me started on Nimda.)
As pointed out in several posts to Bugtraq, yes, the actual bug is in X (probably in libXfont) but Mozilla is a program that retrieves untrusted data across a network and, as such, has a responsibility to reject or sanitize data that could cause problems. The old Internet maxim is, "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send," but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also do some sanity checking.
--Phil (Ardent Bugtraq follower.)
I'm probably an average admin. (Possibly below-average--I only admin a couple boxes at work and about five at home.) I found the book to be quite interesting. I learned far more about the underlying SSH protocol than I had known previously, as well as numerous other things like all of the possibilities available with RSA keys. (I've subsequently used RSA-key-based forced commands for a couple things at work.) Since reading the book through, I've referred back to it a number of times. I find it to be a handier reference than the man pages sometimes and the constant comparisons of OpenSSH, SSH1, and SSH2 are nice--most of the computers I deal with are OpenSSH, but there are a couple running SSH2.
--Phil (Very satisfied ssh user.)
Seriously, this is an insult to the readers of Slashdot (or, at least, me). I've long been a proponent of Rob and Jeff's freedom in choosing topics for the site, but this is a bit much. (And, while it was Katz that put this article up, I highly doubt that he did so without the knowledge of Rob and Jeff.) All this article is is an advertisement for Katz's newest book, with some tenuous ties to topics of interest to Slashdot readers that Katz can point to and say, "See? It's on topic!".
Yeah, Slashdot's been going downhill, but I had hoped it would never sink this low.
--Phil (Now sorry he ever voted to "keep the gasbag".)
I'm a person who has quite an interest in crypto and often a good understanding of the base concepts behind crypto systems, but I don't understand much of the math that goes into proofs like this. Thus, I'd like to put some questions out to those who are more experienced than I am.
First, does this work? Have people independently verified that DJB is correct? (I went looking for some peer review via Google and didn't turn up anything that looked conclusive.)
Secondly, what's vulnerable? As I understand it, what DJB has discovered is a more efficient method of factoring numbers (on custom hardware) such that keys three times longer can be factored in roughly the same time. RSA is based on the product of two relatively prime numbers, so it's vulnerable. Aren't most public key systems based on this principle, though? How vulnerable is, for example, DSA to this new factoring technique?
--Phil (This article went up yesterday; hope someone's still around to read my post...)
Tom Limoncelli presented a paper on this exact subject a few years ago. It's entitled Tricks You Can Do If Your Firewall Is a Bridge and covers a number of useful things you can do with bridging firewalls.
--Phil (My firewall is just an OpenBSD box. I like it that way.)
Looking just at the aspects of data deletion on the hard disk (i.e. ignoring the problems arising when data is transmitted to other computers), the problems of irretrievably deleting data have long been known. Most filesystems' delete commands are, of course, trivially insecure, since, at most, they make a note that the disk sectors containing the file are no longer allocated. Even overwriting the data multiple times may not be sufficient. I believe Peter Gutmann's 1996 Usenix paper, Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory, is still one of the (if not the) authoritative references on the subject. Briefly, when a bit is altered on a disk, the previous bits leave their imprints on the new bit, and it is possible to look back through the layers of deletion for data. Furthermore, it is possible to do this (to a limited degree, but even so...) with relatively inexpensive equipment.
Gutmann then goes on to derive a set of patterns that are optimal for rendering deleted data irretrievable. GNU shred (part of the GNU fileutils) uses these patterns and is the recommended tool for secure deletion in a Unix environment.
Note, however, that shred has some limitations in that it assumes that, when writing data to a file, it is overwriting the old data. The info node notes that this is not the case for some filesystems, including some journaling filesystems. Also, modern hard drives may remap drive sectors on the fly if those sectors begin to fail, leaving the possibility for data to remain in the swapped-out sectors. The safest method is, as usual, complete destruction of the drive.
--Phil (Me? Paranoid? Why do you ask?)
Indeed. I'm a heavy Emacs advocate, and I think that the FSF's info viewer sucks. A lot. Fortunately, there exists a program named pinfo that browses info files in a very nice, lynxlike manner. I recommend it to anyone who needs to look at info files.
--Phil (And, for Debian users, just 'apt-get install pinfo')
Well, the Windows-supplied telnet client is icky. I highly recommend PuTTY for all of your Windows telnet and ssh needs.
Hrm. Well, except for MUDding, actually. A good MUD client really helps. I seem to recall that zMUD was a good Windows MUD client, though it might be shareware. (These days, my only interaction with Windows is supporting it at work; no call for MUD clients there, and I use tinyfugue under Linux at home.)
--Phil (One of these days I'm going to get around to turning tf into an IRC client, just for fun.)
Erm, oops. So I had two <tt> tags at the top of my post and only one at the bottom. Preview was showing the monospaced font extending past my </tt>, galeon wasn't showing my the page source properly (it reloads the page to see the source--bad when on dynamically-generated pages), and </tt> isn't in the list of allowed HTML at the bottom. I jumped to a conclusion.
--Phil (Appropriately chagrined.)
That's not entirely true. While, strictly, comments are diregarded by the interpreter, many Lisp dialects have the conecpt of docstrings, where the first element of a function or structure is a string describing the object's purpose. For an example, let me steal some elisp code from ILISP:
(defun bridge-call-handler (handler proc string)
"Funcall HANDLER on PROC, STRING carefully. Error is caught if happens,
and user is signaled. State is put in bridge-last-failure. Returns t if
handler executed without error."
(let ((inhibit-quit nil)
(failed nil))
(condition-case err
(funcall handler proc string)
(error
(ding)
(setq failed t)
(message "bridge-handler \"%s\" failed %s (see bridge-last-failure)"
handler err)
(setq bridge-last-failure
(` ((funcall '(, handler) '(, proc) (, string))
"Caused: "
(, err))))))
(not failed)))
--Phil (Gee, I wish Slashdot would let me close the <TT> tag!)
I've never played System Shock 2, but I have memories of playing Doom
and Doom 2 late at night with headphones on and the soundtrack to 2001
playing. The 2001 soundtrack has some pretty eerie stuff on it, which
only intensifies the general vibe of walking around in the dark wondering
when the next monster is going to come around the corner at you.
--Phil (I was also younger and more easily frightened then, too.)