I just thought "WTF?" when I saw the fly killing on the news and heard the discussion about whether he should have or should not have killed that fly, the whole decision process, etc.
I don't know what is more pathetic, people who get upset about a dead fly, or people who think anybody should cater to people who get upset about dead flies.
I was pretty upset about Obama giving out region 1 box DVD sets to foreign dignitaries, or an iPod to the Queen of England. Obama seriously needs more coaching on this sort of thing, he's emberrassing us!
It's not the time to code it, even if it takes you a month it's pretty trivial.
It's the cost to process the javascript. If in the time it takes to grab 1 email by processing javascript you could have grabbed 20 or 30 emails by moving on to an easier target, you'd be a fool to process the javascript.
Spammers may have server farms, but they definitely aren't Google sized server farms, it's way too costly for them to do this on their own. Now if Google pre-processes the javascript for them - speaking figuratively, obviously the intended benefitors are not spammers, but regular searchers - they don't waste any extra processing power grabbing those emails too.
Not that big of a deal though, switch to web forms or a simple.png of the email instead of plain text to replace the javascript obfustication.
They don't do it because in the time it takes to process the javascript to get one email address, they could have gotten 20 by skipping it and grabbing more that are left wide open.
Also, obscurity = security until it isn't obscure any more. You -always- obscure before you secure, it adds another layer. If you don't need to be truly secure, obscurity is often a minimal ammount of security that can be quite effective, again depending on your needs.
Webforms and server-side scripts can send an email to the server owner without exposing the email of either party on the web. Once you recieve an email in this way, you will have the poster's email and can continue the conversation.
The spambots will never be able to gleen the website owenr's email in this way, because the processing of the script is done where the spambot has no access.
The next step in obfustication, if you don't want to go through the 30 minutes of coding (for a newbie) it would take to set up a web form (hosting servers often have this built in, btw), is to use an image of the email address. That will be effective until processing such images becomes so trivial that adding it to the spambot would not significantly impact the amount of emails collected.
The "gg" produces a hard "g" sound, but the softer "ng" sound must be preserved when adding "ing" to the end.
The clue is in the fact that mung and munge are pronounced differently. Mung is pronounced with an "ung" like lung or hung, however munge is pronounced with an "unj" like lunge or plunge.
Mung is very odd, because most words spelled this way seem to be nouns. Anyway, you can verify that munge should not be munging two ways: 1.) look at other words that sound similar - lunge, lungeing, plunge, plunging 2.) because mung is already munging.;)
I know you're making a joke, but come on, seriously?
Like a lot of grand plans we do "in the name of science" nobody yet knows what throwing that many turbines up would do ecosystems around the world. It's a lot of energy to be robbing from systems that depend on that energy. Ocean water a few degrees warmer in select areas destroys coastal ecosystems, what will the wind averaging a few MPH less do?
And sure, the potential may top global demands by more than five times today, but what about 50 years from now? What about when we upgrade all these things to boost output?
These figures were also based on propellor - style turbines. They kill a lot of birds, and bats wherever they go in. There are vertical turbines, but they are significantly less efficient and have significantly higher maintenance costs. What do we do when all you can see are wind turbines wherever you look?
Re:Duct Tape is a Bad Idea--Use Magnets!
on
Best eSATA JBOD?
·
· Score: 1
I never laugh out loud at work, therefore what I did in reaction to your post was simply an uncontrolled spasm of my diaphragm
Seriously though, that was some frickin funny stuff.
Synaptic isn't necessary on Windows or Mac, because installing programs is significantly simpler on these platforms(.msi and.dmg). Synaptic also only works on a subset of Linux boxes.
The propietary counterpart to Synfig is Flash, and it is significantly more feature rich than Synfig.
Gobby is designed after SubEthaEdit, which is Mac based closed-source. It was once free, but they eventually had to go commercial because too few people used it. UNA was built from the ground up by N-Brain as a collab software design environment. For these I couldn't say which is better.:P
Inkscape is kickass, but it still isn't as good as Adobe Illustrator.
On the flip side though, there are a TON of commercial apps that are complete crap and won't get better because of the small number of users the company has to cater to. The equivalent type (they are specific purpose, so there usually isn't a linux equivalent) in linux tends to be much higher quality.
Yeah, this is only a million times more efficient. This operates at the Watt level, not the MegaWatt level. It took massive amounts of energy to just barely power a device that uses far less energy than an iPod in your case.
Also, regarding the radio polution, these resonance devices operate at very high frequencies, and as a radio afficianado you must know, higher frequencies mean less distance and less substantial objects can block the signal. Furthermore, differing frequencies don't interact with one another, and the required tuning for higher frequency devices is much higher than low frequency devices. Chances are the EM waves for this device couldn't leave a room or penetrate the skin.
It's the same technology used for Qality of Service in any large network, as well as monitoring and preventing network attacks. I would say there are far more positive uses than negative.
It's also not amazing technology either, networks operate via protocols, which by definition must be known in order for communication to occur. If the protocol is known, the data inside the protocol can be extracted and inspected. Routing actually works by reading the first few frames of an IP packet, which contain source and destination information, and sending the packet on the appropriate route. DPI is nothing more than having the router (or any device attached to the network) move beyond the first few frames and look at the encapsulated data itself.
Any high end router is capable of contextual packet prioritization (all the way down to blockage) and redirection. It is used in school networks, corporate networks, library networks, etc. It is REQUIRED for any sort of quality network management.
Show me solid evidence like international observers findings for the "coup" in election . Then I would believe you. Because frankly speaking, I have not seen anything other than reports about "protests"
Soooo the fact that the only reason you are hearing -anything- out of Iran is because a small number of knowledgeable people inside the country are able to get around the MASSIVE COMMUNICATIONS BLOCK the government set up doesn't make you think that maybe they wouldn't allow any international observers to watch their elections?
Of COURSE there isn't any evidence from international observers, international observers are not permitted! It's like saying a guy who takes over a bank, knocks out the cameras, locks all the people inside, but we can't prove he is stealing any money, even though someone inside the bank is able to sneak out messages saying he has broken into the vault and executed 3 people to keep the hostages in line.
Also, apparently Iran has some sick vote counting technology that allows them to count 40 million hand-marked ballots in under 3 hours.
Dumbshit. You're actually going to say "pics or it didn't happen" to something as important as this? People like you allow dictators and tyrants to get away with this shit.
Cisco, and ALL quality routing and switching equipment, have features built in that allow for traffic inspection and redirection. These are NECESSARY for any kind of decent network maintenance and control. ALL networks in the world have this capability. Even a shitty network built on dumb linksys devices can be made to do this by running everything through a computer with packet inspection and redirection software on it (there are a hell of a lot of Open Source options for you too;) ).
I'm not sure why you would be upset that Cisco would set this up for China and show them how to use it.
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't. That is the responsibility of the oppressed. Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally. Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests. If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.
Oppressed countries don't have free markets, they have tyrants stealing the majority of what they produce to further oppress the people. If a tyrant allowed the markets in his country to be open and free, guess what would happen. That's right, they'd have vastly greater liberty! You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either. It would be more like "benevolent ruler", because freedom to trade requires a few things, like freedom of speech (in a practical sense, not a bill of rights sense), freedom to travel, etc. These breed other freedoms that these rely on, and pretty soon the government, regardless of what kind of government it is, becomes a smaller and smaller part of life.
Free markets on a global scale don't take into account the internal market of a country, other than in the sense that there are avenues of trade that simply will not exist into or out of an oppressed country. That doesn't mean there will be NO avenues of trade, just fewer and they will be controlled by the government.
To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade. If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.
That said, complete freedom produces incivility and is counter productive. If it were possible to give everyone in the world 100% liberty, you'd have a perfect world for all of about 10 seconds, probably less. It would immediately degenerate into anarchy, which only provides freedom for those who can take it by force. In a sense, even they aren't free.
Ideally the governments role should be to maximise the individual liberties of its citizens. This requires restrictions on interactions between people, but only for the purposes preventing the imposition of another's will on the individual.
In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.
It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing. Assuming the "tyrannical government" is not preventing individuals from getting together and competing with the large corporation, in a free market system the corporation topples when becomes less efficient than what a smaller group of individuals can produce. This can take some time, but it always happens.
Look at the banking and insurance industry, that big crash? That was the market self adjusting, attempting to eliminate the "most powerful corporations" when they pushed the market too far. And what did socialism do? It went in and rescued them, taking billions of dollars from the citizens to shore up the corporations. The market can't eliminate a corporation if the government props them up!
Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.
If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism. You were told where to work, when to work, what you got, and any attempt to change this made you a criminal. You'd sure as hell better stay in line, or the KGB will come take you away. China was the same way when they attempted to go pure Communist, but had to re-introduce captitalism or face collapse. If Communism, the only alternative socio-economic ideology, is so great, why does the Chinese government have to block access to information about the outside world?
Indeed. And those who remember it with rose colored glasses are doomed to repeat it far more enthusiasticly than the original.
The US Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful protests. What happened at Kent State certainly began as such, but the problem started when protesters began vandalizing cars, breaking the windows of businesses that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the war, and throwing rocks at the firefighters who arrived to put out the fires started by the protesters.
The shootings only happened after 4 days of the city's attempts to dispurse the violent and destructive protestors failed. The only tragedy is the number of innocent bystanders who were hurt, including the wounded guardsmen and firefighters, and the people who's property was destroyed.
The right to protest ends when you begin endangering other people's life and property. The ones to blame for the May 4 Massacre are the violent protestors who went way across the line of civil protesting. From what I understand, nobody is sure what triggered the actual shooting. It appeared to be directed at specific target, but it was not in the main mass of protestors. Whatever the reason, a violent response was inevitable and only great restraint from the city and the Guard kept it from happening sooner. Lets not forget why it got to that point.
Ports are not protocols. Or, to put it in geekspeak for you, Port != Protocol. Port is short for "Communications Port", and it is required to communicate with the OS from an external source. A protocol is a standardized method of communication. For example, TCP/IP are two protocols for networking - the Transport Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol. They basically establish the pattern the ones and zeros will take when exiting your machine, so that another machine knows where the relavent data is in the stream of bits coming accross.
There are ports designated for certain protocols, but the list is small compared to the total number of ports available and there is nothing that says a protocol can't work over a port designated for something else, like sending FTP data over port 80 (HTTP) instead of ports 20 or 21, which are designated for it.
Last, the recieving computer doesn't care what port it was sent on, it only cares which port it will be coming in on. This is why we have designated ports, because the protocol will default to these ports unless instructed otherwise. It's also sort of like putting a "reserved" sign on a dinner table. It doesn't mean someone can't sit down and have dinner, but they will know they normally shouldn't.
All that to say, no, they aren't blocking ports. They are blocking protocols - which have distinct patterns and can be detected and blocked rather simply.
Basically we cannot know what the typical user wants in an interface until we put it in his hands, he has a chance to play with it, and he begins to make choices about how he's going to use it.
You don't have to start with utter shit though. You could at least start with the useability of, say Windows 2000, a nearly 10 year old OS, and go from there.
That's the way I see the Linux Desktop right now. The kernel is on par with the NT kernel or Darwin, better in some ways worse in others, but the UI is about as good as Win95 overall. Kickass in one or two ways, but overall it just sucks. To be fair to the KDE folks I mostly used Gnome, I tried KDE a couple times and switched back because Gnome was easier. I didn't try KDE 4.
I suspect you're probably from either the left or right coast. Only stuffy Urbanites would find "cowboy" derogatory.;)
It's not urbanites that would find it derogatory, the west coast was founded by cowboys. East coast is probably the only place it would be seen as derogatory more often than not.
Hell, I live in Alaska and I'd take it as a compliment.
The intended implication based on the context, would be a lone programmer seeking glory and fame. "Cowboy" is not negative in the US, but is highly romanticized and in general has positive connotations. However, a "cowboy" would also be a loner, gets shit done but doesn't play well with others. So when an attitude like that is a bad thing, "cowboy" carries a negative connotation.
You must remember who cowboys were in the US, as far as I know the Brits didn't have anything like it really, or at least not much like it. To educate yourself, watch some old John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies for the acme of cowboy romanticism. Note that they are -highly- romanticized versions of what the cowboy was. James Bond would actually be a decent substitute, like a really classy, charming cowboy.
To be fair it usually does, but occasionally it doesn't for no apparent reason, and it's really hard to troubleshoot since all the troubleshooting documentation is online.
Slashdot Mirror
I just thought "WTF?" when I saw the fly killing on the news and heard the discussion about whether he should have or should not have killed that fly, the whole decision process, etc.
I don't know what is more pathetic, people who get upset about a dead fly, or people who think anybody should cater to people who get upset about dead flies.
I was pretty upset about Obama giving out region 1 box DVD sets to foreign dignitaries, or an iPod to the Queen of England. Obama seriously needs more coaching on this sort of thing, he's emberrassing us!
It's not the time to code it, even if it takes you a month it's pretty trivial.
It's the cost to process the javascript. If in the time it takes to grab 1 email by processing javascript you could have grabbed 20 or 30 emails by moving on to an easier target, you'd be a fool to process the javascript.
Spammers may have server farms, but they definitely aren't Google sized server farms, it's way too costly for them to do this on their own. Now if Google pre-processes the javascript for them - speaking figuratively, obviously the intended benefitors are not spammers, but regular searchers - they don't waste any extra processing power grabbing those emails too.
Not that big of a deal though, switch to web forms or a simple .png of the email instead of plain text to replace the javascript obfustication.
They don't do it because in the time it takes to process the javascript to get one email address, they could have gotten 20 by skipping it and grabbing more that are left wide open.
Also, obscurity = security until it isn't obscure any more. You -always- obscure before you secure, it adds another layer. If you don't need to be truly secure, obscurity is often a minimal ammount of security that can be quite effective, again depending on your needs.
Webforms and server-side scripts can send an email to the server owner without exposing the email of either party on the web. Once you recieve an email in this way, you will have the poster's email and can continue the conversation.
The spambots will never be able to gleen the website owenr's email in this way, because the processing of the script is done where the spambot has no access.
The next step in obfustication, if you don't want to go through the 30 minutes of coding (for a newbie) it would take to set up a web form (hosting servers often have this built in, btw), is to use an image of the email address. That will be effective until processing such images becomes so trivial that adding it to the spambot would not significantly impact the amount of emails collected.
I don't know what pool has to do with this...
Incorrect.
The "gg" produces a hard "g" sound, but the softer "ng" sound must be preserved when adding "ing" to the end.
The clue is in the fact that mung and munge are pronounced differently. Mung is pronounced with an "ung" like lung or hung, however munge is pronounced with an "unj" like lunge or plunge.
Mung is very odd, because most words spelled this way seem to be nouns. Anyway, you can verify that munge should not be munging two ways: 1.) look at other words that sound similar - lunge, lungeing, plunge, plunging 2.) because mung is already munging. ;)
I know you're making a joke, but come on, seriously?
Like a lot of grand plans we do "in the name of science" nobody yet knows what throwing that many turbines up would do ecosystems around the world. It's a lot of energy to be robbing from systems that depend on that energy. Ocean water a few degrees warmer in select areas destroys coastal ecosystems, what will the wind averaging a few MPH less do?
And sure, the potential may top global demands by more than five times today, but what about 50 years from now? What about when we upgrade all these things to boost output?
These figures were also based on propellor - style turbines. They kill a lot of birds, and bats wherever they go in. There are vertical turbines, but they are significantly less efficient and have significantly higher maintenance costs. What do we do when all you can see are wind turbines wherever you look?
I never laugh out loud at work, therefore what I did in reaction to your post was simply an uncontrolled spasm of my diaphragm
Seriously though, that was some frickin funny stuff.
Synaptic isn't necessary on Windows or Mac, because installing programs is significantly simpler on these platforms(.msi and .dmg). Synaptic also only works on a subset of Linux boxes.
The propietary counterpart to Synfig is Flash, and it is significantly more feature rich than Synfig.
Gobby is designed after SubEthaEdit, which is Mac based closed-source. It was once free, but they eventually had to go commercial because too few people used it. UNA was built from the ground up by N-Brain as a collab software design environment. For these I couldn't say which is better. :P
Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.
Unix was proprietary, and built by AT&T. Unix.
Nextstep used parts of FreeBSD and NetBSD, sure, but that was just the cheap path to Unix.
If you accept the GP's premis, his point is still valid.
Nice try though, kthxbye.
Inkscape is kickass, but it still isn't as good as Adobe Illustrator.
On the flip side though, there are a TON of commercial apps that are complete crap and won't get better because of the small number of users the company has to cater to. The equivalent type (they are specific purpose, so there usually isn't a linux equivalent) in linux tends to be much higher quality.
Yeah, this is only a million times more efficient. This operates at the Watt level, not the MegaWatt level. It took massive amounts of energy to just barely power a device that uses far less energy than an iPod in your case.
Also, regarding the radio polution, these resonance devices operate at very high frequencies, and as a radio afficianado you must know, higher frequencies mean less distance and less substantial objects can block the signal. Furthermore, differing frequencies don't interact with one another, and the required tuning for higher frequency devices is much higher than low frequency devices. Chances are the EM waves for this device couldn't leave a room or penetrate the skin.
is there any *good* use for that equipment?
It's the same technology used for Qality of Service in any large network, as well as monitoring and preventing network attacks. I would say there are far more positive uses than negative.
It's also not amazing technology either, networks operate via protocols, which by definition must be known in order for communication to occur. If the protocol is known, the data inside the protocol can be extracted and inspected. Routing actually works by reading the first few frames of an IP packet, which contain source and destination information, and sending the packet on the appropriate route. DPI is nothing more than having the router (or any device attached to the network) move beyond the first few frames and look at the encapsulated data itself.
Any high end router is capable of contextual packet prioritization (all the way down to blockage) and redirection. It is used in school networks, corporate networks, library networks, etc. It is REQUIRED for any sort of quality network management.
Which is why it is getting no media attention and people aren't talking about it 24/7.
Oh wait...
Show me solid evidence like international observers findings for the "coup" in election . Then I would believe you. Because frankly speaking, I have not seen anything other than reports about "protests"
Soooo the fact that the only reason you are hearing -anything- out of Iran is because a small number of knowledgeable people inside the country are able to get around the MASSIVE COMMUNICATIONS BLOCK the government set up doesn't make you think that maybe they wouldn't allow any international observers to watch their elections?
Of COURSE there isn't any evidence from international observers, international observers are not permitted! It's like saying a guy who takes over a bank, knocks out the cameras, locks all the people inside, but we can't prove he is stealing any money, even though someone inside the bank is able to sneak out messages saying he has broken into the vault and executed 3 people to keep the hostages in line.
Also, apparently Iran has some sick vote counting technology that allows them to count 40 million hand-marked ballots in under 3 hours.
Dumbshit. You're actually going to say "pics or it didn't happen" to something as important as this? People like you allow dictators and tyrants to get away with this shit.
Cisco, and ALL quality routing and switching equipment, have features built in that allow for traffic inspection and redirection. These are NECESSARY for any kind of decent network maintenance and control. ALL networks in the world have this capability. Even a shitty network built on dumb linksys devices can be made to do this by running everything through a computer with packet inspection and redirection software on it (there are a hell of a lot of Open Source options for you too ;) ).
I'm not sure why you would be upset that Cisco would set this up for China and show them how to use it.
I'll bite.
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't. That is the responsibility of the oppressed. Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally. Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests. If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.
Oppressed countries don't have free markets, they have tyrants stealing the majority of what they produce to further oppress the people. If a tyrant allowed the markets in his country to be open and free, guess what would happen. That's right, they'd have vastly greater liberty! You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either. It would be more like "benevolent ruler", because freedom to trade requires a few things, like freedom of speech (in a practical sense, not a bill of rights sense), freedom to travel, etc. These breed other freedoms that these rely on, and pretty soon the government, regardless of what kind of government it is, becomes a smaller and smaller part of life.
Free markets on a global scale don't take into account the internal market of a country, other than in the sense that there are avenues of trade that simply will not exist into or out of an oppressed country. That doesn't mean there will be NO avenues of trade, just fewer and they will be controlled by the government.
To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade. If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.
That said, complete freedom produces incivility and is counter productive. If it were possible to give everyone in the world 100% liberty, you'd have a perfect world for all of about 10 seconds, probably less. It would immediately degenerate into anarchy, which only provides freedom for those who can take it by force. In a sense, even they aren't free.
Ideally the governments role should be to maximise the individual liberties of its citizens. This requires restrictions on interactions between people, but only for the purposes preventing the imposition of another's will on the individual.
In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.
It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing. Assuming the "tyrannical government" is not preventing individuals from getting together and competing with the large corporation, in a free market system the corporation topples when becomes less efficient than what a smaller group of individuals can produce. This can take some time, but it always happens.
Look at the banking and insurance industry, that big crash? That was the market self adjusting, attempting to eliminate the "most powerful corporations" when they pushed the market too far. And what did socialism do? It went in and rescued them, taking billions of dollars from the citizens to shore up the corporations. The market can't eliminate a corporation if the government props them up!
Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.
If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism. You were told where to work, when to work, what you got, and any attempt to change this made you a criminal. You'd sure as hell better stay in line, or the KGB will come take you away. China was the same way when they attempted to go pure Communist, but had to re-introduce captitalism or face collapse. If Communism, the only alternative socio-economic ideology, is so great, why does the Chinese government have to block access to information about the outside world?
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Indeed. And those who remember it with rose colored glasses are doomed to repeat it far more enthusiasticly than the original.
The US Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful protests. What happened at Kent State certainly began as such, but the problem started when protesters began vandalizing cars, breaking the windows of businesses that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the war, and throwing rocks at the firefighters who arrived to put out the fires started by the protesters.
The shootings only happened after 4 days of the city's attempts to dispurse the violent and destructive protestors failed. The only tragedy is the number of innocent bystanders who were hurt, including the wounded guardsmen and firefighters, and the people who's property was destroyed.
The right to protest ends when you begin endangering other people's life and property. The ones to blame for the May 4 Massacre are the violent protestors who went way across the line of civil protesting. From what I understand, nobody is sure what triggered the actual shooting. It appeared to be directed at specific target, but it was not in the main mass of protestors. Whatever the reason, a violent response was inevitable and only great restraint from the city and the Guard kept it from happening sooner. Lets not forget why it got to that point.
Ports are not protocols. Or, to put it in geekspeak for you, Port != Protocol. Port is short for "Communications Port", and it is required to communicate with the OS from an external source. A protocol is a standardized method of communication. For example, TCP/IP are two protocols for networking - the Transport Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol. They basically establish the pattern the ones and zeros will take when exiting your machine, so that another machine knows where the relavent data is in the stream of bits coming accross.
There are ports designated for certain protocols, but the list is small compared to the total number of ports available and there is nothing that says a protocol can't work over a port designated for something else, like sending FTP data over port 80 (HTTP) instead of ports 20 or 21, which are designated for it.
Last, the recieving computer doesn't care what port it was sent on, it only cares which port it will be coming in on. This is why we have designated ports, because the protocol will default to these ports unless instructed otherwise. It's also sort of like putting a "reserved" sign on a dinner table. It doesn't mean someone can't sit down and have dinner, but they will know they normally shouldn't.
All that to say, no, they aren't blocking ports. They are blocking protocols - which have distinct patterns and can be detected and blocked rather simply.
You still sound like either a serial killer or a chronic masturbator.
Or both.
Wait, I don't understand!
I can't follow that, what happened to ??? ?
It's a critical step and it's not there! *head explodes*
Basically we cannot know what the typical user wants in an interface until we put it in his hands, he has a chance to play with it, and he begins to make choices about how he's going to use it.
You don't have to start with utter shit though. You could at least start with the useability of, say Windows 2000, a nearly 10 year old OS, and go from there.
That's the way I see the Linux Desktop right now. The kernel is on par with the NT kernel or Darwin, better in some ways worse in others, but the UI is about as good as Win95 overall. Kickass in one or two ways, but overall it just sucks. To be fair to the KDE folks I mostly used Gnome, I tried KDE a couple times and switched back because Gnome was easier. I didn't try KDE 4.
I suspect you're probably from either the left or right coast. Only stuffy Urbanites would find "cowboy" derogatory. ;)
It's not urbanites that would find it derogatory, the west coast was founded by cowboys. East coast is probably the only place it would be seen as derogatory more often than not.
Hell, I live in Alaska and I'd take it as a compliment.
The intended implication based on the context, would be a lone programmer seeking glory and fame. "Cowboy" is not negative in the US, but is highly romanticized and in general has positive connotations. However, a "cowboy" would also be a loner, gets shit done but doesn't play well with others. So when an attitude like that is a bad thing, "cowboy" carries a negative connotation.
You must remember who cowboys were in the US, as far as I know the Brits didn't have anything like it really, or at least not much like it. To educate yourself, watch some old John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies for the acme of cowboy romanticism. Note that they are -highly- romanticized versions of what the cowboy was. James Bond would actually be a decent substitute, like a really classy, charming cowboy.
Network Manager is great - when it works.
To be fair it usually does, but occasionally it doesn't for no apparent reason, and it's really hard to troubleshoot since all the troubleshooting documentation is online.