Wow. I have spent considerable time in the past putting together well-linked relevant stories, only to have them rejected. Not that I'm grousing about it, but what exactly is this?
Is it a 'most of our political posts bash bush, so let's try and keep it balanced' kind of a story? WTF? Is this a goddamn political blog? There are hundreds of those out there, why did we have to drag it in here, and worse still, couldn't we try to stick to relevant issues, or barring that, actual fucking news?
Are we all supposed to spin off of some technological analysis of this gaffe? (Kerry must have been getting his 'updates' from Windows XP. he he.)
I mean, can someone step up and tell me what possible reason someone would think that should be posted. And for that matter, why would an editor accept it?
I had this sinking feeling that having a politics section would somehow cloud the otherwise mostly worthwhile content on slashdot, but I never could have predicted the results would be this dismal.
Well, since we're on the subject of lies, and deception, let's look at the degrees of each of these cases.
While investigating a supposedly thirty-year-old document, a news team discovered that the writer expressed similar reservations verbally. They also discover that the circumstantial facts were all true (missed a physical...outside pressure applied to fudge some paperwork...etc.) News team therefore assumes a document is valid. Sloppy journalism, yes. Personal vendetta by a journalist to sacrifice his career and reputation to smear the President? Doubtful, but some of you will believe anything...
Contrast that to your example. "Everyone and his brother" hasn't expressed similar doubts about Kerry's service. Actually, of all of the servicemen on those 3 patrol boats, ONE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT has his doubts...the rest of the "everyone" got this information third-hand. They happen to hook up with some Texas political operatives who smeared McCain 5 years ago, they write a book and form a supposed "group" of Swift Boat Vets. Sorry, pretty low on the credibility chart for me.
You, however, seem to have been swept up in the story about the story.
document While we're on the subject of foregone assumptions, "everyone and his brother" hasn't expressed doubts about Kerry's service...and while the Swift Boat Vets have Let's see, if we examine what was said
1. Michael Moore doesn't own 62 stations, and he didn't force anyone to show his movie. He made it, and people gladly lined up to see it. It may have been a little too conspiritorial in a few places, but no one has proved it untrue, and it's certainly not showing up masquerading as a news show.
2. Despite what you are determined to believe, while the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out and guess what, they support what's expressed in the memos. That's what made it possible to verify them. Everyone and their brother agreed that what's in them is true.
3. George Soros also has not forced anyone to broadcast anything. He's written a rational essay, and paid for it to be dispatched like any other advertising. See point #1.
Now if Dan Rather had put Fahrenheit 9/11 on TV and dressed it up as news, then you might have a point, but you seem to be hanging on to your simplistic views a little too tightly.
Vel Satis has been awarded the maximum 5-star rating from Euro NCAP, an independant consortium. It is now the safest saloon in the executive-car segment.
These quotes seem to suggest it's unconstitutional for anyone other than Congress to declare war.
Congress still has (and did have) the right to declare war, and they turned it over to Bush to use at his disposal. (In theory, at least, I don't think he actually declared anything.)
Why not a collection of quotes about how Congresspeople are lemmings?
First of all, we won't be be able to crack any encryption.
Private-key encryption will still be just as safe (most likely).
Public key encryption based on factoring will be the first casualty.
Given the fact that patches, fixes, and reimplementations are developed and administered all the time, there's no reason to think that fixing vulnerable systems won't be a fairly trivial re-implementation of some sort. Even if a bunch of systems are left unpatched, it's a long way from IBM labs to some script kiddie's Quantum iPod.
There will be market-hyped hysteria, and a massive cottage industry of re-implementations of security protocols. Think Y2K but worse.
The blonde woman with at least 2 tattoos, one on your lower back and one on your stomach. You allowed your boyfriend to use his cell phone camera to take many seductive photos and videos of you and him engaged in various sex acts. How did he get you to pose naked with the new rims he bought for his civic? I'm willing to bet that when he showed his buddies those pictures, this enraged you enough to smash his cell phone on the ground, shattering it to pieces.
Me:
The one who found the smashed cell phone near Armitage and Western and picked up the flash card full of images and videos.
Don't worry baby, I'll treat you right. I don't even own a cell phone.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests this is in or around Bucktown
Tyler's a great rider, and surely a tough one, but I don't think that makes him more likely to take it this year.
Ullrich has won it once (at 22), came in second five times, and has won twice as many one-day classics and tours (and more substantial ones, at that). A bit more of a champion's resume, if that counts for something.
There are plenty other regulations for international competitive cycling: -the entire bicycle must weigh at least 6.8 kg -the frame must be of the 'double diamond' design (this rules out recumbents) -no fairings -all competitors are encouraged to use performance enhancing drugs (and their masking agents), as long as the team manager's girlfriend's doctor's cousin carries them.
Yes, I probably misrembered the unit of distance, maybe it was 2 seconds/40 seconds per 'lap' - whatever that was.
Aero wheels are more effective at shaving time than aero bars. To a degree, a cyclist can change their riding style in the drops to cheat the wind (with a tradeoff in power or endurance), but 72 spokes whipping through the air? No cheating there. Aero wheels still bring advantage in the climbs, while aero bars are just extra weight. I'm not saying they're useless, just not as effective as low-spoke count bladed wheels or discs.
His point is probably more from a scientific point of view; that is, is the tradeoff between weight, cost, and performance worth it?
Serious cycling is an excellent book by a former US Olympic cycling coach that addresses this. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it goes something like this: -a one pound reduction in bike weight will save a cyclist 2 seconds over the course of a kilometer -a simple reduction in aerodynamic drag, such as replacing 36-spoke wheels with disc wheels will save a cyclist 40 seconds over a kilometer despite the considerable weight penalty
So spending $x on a titanium seat bolt is usually a waste of money, in terms of performance. Or in otherwords, you might make it to the top of your hill quicker, but over the course of the ride, the more aerodynamic bike may get to the hill well before you.
Don't want it on the main page? That's what your homepage preferences are for.
I don't why everyone gets their panties in a bunch of a few editorializing words in postings. You want supposedly straight facts and not much else? Try news.google.com.
The whole notion of a community discussion site is built on opinions, to muzzle the opinions of the poster is asinine. Unlike a journalist, a story poster has no professional responsibility to maintain objectivity.
So content developers and censorship-sensitive folks are predictably up in arms about the whole thing, but I have to say, I think this is a good idea.
I have young kids (2 and 4), and sadly, there are plenty of movies I think they'd like, but they just won't get played because of a couple of words here and there. If they were older, I could explain to them what they were, and why we don't use them, but as they're soaking up language like sponges at the moment, it's just not prudent.
For example, we saw a movie last weekend, and it was 99.99% ok, but it had the words bitch, damn, and ass in it. What I found particularly annoying was that this was a movie somewhat geared toward kids (Casper), and so I can't imagine why they chose to put those words in it, it's not like the dialogue was critical to the chiaroscuro of the characters. Luckily, they missed the words, but it's not something I'd keep in the collection. Luckily, that's a crap movie, so no one will miss it, but there are loads of other movies (like the Blues Brothers, for example) that I think they'd like (James Brown and car crashes, who wouldn't), but there are just a couple seconds I'd like to clip out here and there. Not forever mind you, but until they're old enough to know why they shouldn't use those words.
There's a void of decent content out there that's suitable for kids. I don't want to be stuck with Disney crap or any other warmed over Barney garbage. We want the right to buy our music and have fair use over it, why not our movies? If you buy a video game, you often have the option of 'turning down' the gore, why should this be any different?
I'm sure in the long run, I'd be disappointed with the level of 'editorializing' that the machine does, but like I said, soon enough they'll be old enough to hear/see some of it and besides, I'm sure they'll know how to deactivate it by the time they're 8 or so.
You've obviously sampled the Republican Kool Aid that so much of your taxes are wasted on social services. If you were to add up the federal funds spent on gambling and alcohol treatment, it still wouldn't add up to the price of a single F-18 (not that I'm suggesting F-18s are a waste of tax dollars).
Progressive values, that is, looking after the poor, the sick, the SOL, and yes, the destitute alcoholic gambling addicts, are American ideals, not leftist ones.
Perhaps you should read a history book, where you would find that once upon a time, a number of Republicans like Roosevelt and Truman supported 'additional services and welfare costs' like the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the GI bill, and Federal Jobs Programs...but now, since the conservative hacks have all but driven moderates out of the Repugnant party, it's all just 'entitlements' huh?
Oh wait, look, both the EPA and the National Park System were also created by Republicans, but that's another post...
Anti-virus software has proven to be not enough and firewalls create problems while performing daily business tasks on the server from home.
You seem to have a cheap/free/software-only firewall. Try this Router/Firewall/VPN/File and ftp server. It's basically a linux-based router with an Intel IXP422 processor. Disclosure: I work there, but aside from that, it's a pretty sick little toy.
Unlike most cheap/software-only firewalls, you can configure the firewall on many levels (initial/final/input/output/WAN/LAN/PPPoE), you can specifically block/allow AIM file sharing, Kazaa, Half-Life, smtp, etc. You can even put a box in the DMZ if you really want something naked out there. Plus it can be a File and FTP server by adding a firewire/USB hard drive. The firewall configuration capabilities alone are pretty much only matched in products that cost 2-300 more. VPN access while you're on the road, etc, ok, enough marketing shpiel...check out the 'learn how' link on the page linked above. I know folks are lined up to say 'I can do that on my 486 with IPtables and...' but you can pretty much set all this up in half an hour.
You can find it $220 or so, and while that seems high compared to 'old 486' option, personally, the time it saved me was worth it. I know a fair bit about linux, but it would have burned up a bunch of my time to get all that working.
It's also worth noting that I've been to a couple G movies and I've never seen an R movie advertised.
According to this article , it was enough of a problem that the MPAA decided to self-impose some rules on the subject a few years back (presumably before the government did it for them). It also seems they have recently forgotten about those rules.
I'm not saying you can't watch your pole-dancing skanks, though perhaps you could do it: a. not during something rated "Y-7" -- like a sporting event, or b. in the evening when most kids are in bed. I'm not looking for a candy coated world, maybe just one where you can watch something rated "Y-7" (as the superbowl, and most sports are) that doesn't have slutty dancing chicks in it, or in the ads. Nobody needs their daughter to see that. It's interesting that you assume I wouldn't want my son to see such women, but I was more concerned with my daughter. Kids copy what they see, and these images are not real people, they are exaggerated sex kittens. Once again, I'm talking about certain programs, so I wouldn't expect, say, Soul Train, to suddenly do away with booty dancing.
Your comparisons bring up a couple points: I wouldn't have to explain to my kids what breasts are. There's nothing wrong with them per se, in art, even a soap ad on a Paris bus stop wouldn't even get a second look from them. That's my point, outlawing that will do nothing for the eyecandy and sexual innuendo so generously sprinkled on everything else. You can never really develop enforceable rules for it, I guess the best you can hope for is to bitch at the advertisers and say, "I'm offended that you would run a commercial that implied that Tiger woods had a three way in the back of his Buick. My kids were watching that golf tournament, you bastards!"
As far as porn on public TV, sure it happens in Japan and Europe, but not in the middle of the day.
So many people in this discussion have taken the stance that you should just turn off the TV or you're a bad parent. That's just bullshit. TV can be valuable and provide positive views of the world, and I shouldn't have to weld it permanently on sesame street to make sure the kids don't get an eyeful of the pseudo-lesbo-incestuous Coors Twins in the middle of the day. Sorry to deprive you.
I think you're ironically hitting the nail on the head.
You wouldn't let a 5-year-old listen to Howard Stern's show, because you know what to expect. The Super Bowl, on the other hand, is a sporting event, and it isn't automatically the exclusive domain of adults.
What you're saying could be applied to movies: You take a kid to a G-rated movie, but the preview was R-rated. Oh well, don't let your kid watch it, or at least teach him about it. Like that's realistic. Certain things on TV (like sports) should be ok for kids to watch.
At a Cubs game, if you get seats in the 'family section' and yell "Fuck the Yankees" you will be ejected. Nobody's crying a river over their first amendment rights there.
The sad thing about all this is, it doesn't really address what I think is the real problem. You have a dozen pseudo-pornstar-cheerleaders dancing around P Diddy, but all the attention is on the Boob (which personally, I thought was just clumsy innuendo, and somehow a tiny bit more artistically licensed). So big deal, the f-word and the boob will bring a half million dollar fine, but a cadre of pole-dancing skanks will replace her, because they're legal. I think the FCC is going to pat itself on the back while doing virtually nothing, but frankly, they are trying to put a band aid on a leper.
I'm no prude, but I'd like my kids to be inspired by healthy, athletic, and intelligent people. That's why I try to keep them from seeing most everything on TV, but when your kids can't watch sports because they think we need a midriff to keep us all entertained between plays, then yeah, it's time to cage the networks and advertisers and stick to the action on the field.
Shouldn't be hard, pick a open issues site and see who hosts them? That's part of the reason some of them do it, for exposure, good karma, brand awareness, etc.
Hundreds of doomsayers predicting the demise of this, and not one mention (modded up at least) of Windows ripping off the Mac interface...and Apple LOSING the subsequent lawsuit.
According to one legal analysis, Microsoft's legal strategy was that of "breaking Apple's nebulous 'gestalt' and 'look-and-feel' theory into specific identifiable elements and then knocking each one down like uncopyrightable bowling pins...demonstrating nearly two dozen windowing systems...that used elements Apple claimed to own.
Doesn't sound much different here, I doubt they'd waste their time on it.
At first I thought, oh great, the stormtroopers have overreacted, but I have to agree, this guy is a opportunistic scumbag.
While I doubt this actually fits the legal definition of extortion, the cops have to accept the fact that, in accepting a 'free' site (without an enforceable written or indisputable oral contract), they probably have no legitimate rights to the content or the domain. So much for free.
The webmaster screwed up in that he was probably trying to cash in on 'development time' (if he did in fact spend much time on it), and as such, HE is SOL because he also has no contract. In fact, since there's a snowball's chance in hell that he paid $300k in bandwidth overage fees, he's an idiot because he can't even prove that's a fair price.
I doubt they will make extortion stick, but they succeeded is seriously fscking this guy's life up.
Maybe I should try the wayback machine or google cache...and sell them the reconstructed site, for say $50k? Hm. I've got work to do.
To be honest, I love the technology, but when it needs attention, I hate it.
Case in point, I recently came home, and within minutes, had to reconfigure my router/firewall (conflicting with my wife's work), I had to call directv because the new card they sent me has mysteriously fscked up my TV. My new TiVo has decided to switch stations to record what it thinks we like, so in the middle of some previously approved show, my kids find themselves suddenly watching Barney, who is dinosaura non grata in my house. Now I have to do maintenance on the TiVo so it won't do that anymore. It's not the technology, it's the goddamned maintenance, especially the 'features' installed by the manufacturers, that drives me nuts.
I know what I'm getting into when I crack open the TiVo or triple secure my wireless network. I don't appreciate having to do this crap on a day-to-day basis.
My first choice would be to buy a decent espresso machine and some some high quality pods (I prefer fine grounds, but pods are cleaner for the office). Someone at my office does it and it makes the day worth living sometimes. I can hear the barely imperceptible screeee of the steamer warming up from 15 cubes away, like a dog hears a silent whistle. Granted, the owner of the machine is way up the food chain, so she can get away with steaming a pot of milk every now and then. It might be different if every other cube jockey did it. But then, lattes are for wusses, and espresso needs no steam, of course.
Second, I would look into a french press, as mentioned elsewhere on this post. All you need is course grounds and hot water. Infinitely better than your garden variety industrial hotpot crap.
Third, I would look into cold-press method. With 2/3 less acid, it's easier on your stomach (quite a benefit if you'll be pulling a long coding shift), and you can have it cold or add hot water to it. You can make the extract overnight, and bring it with you. It's probably some of the smoothest coffee you'll encounter, but a bit of advanced planning is needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I have spent considerable time in the past putting together well-linked relevant stories, only to have them rejected. Not that I'm grousing about it, but what exactly is this?
Is it a 'most of our political posts bash bush, so let's try and keep it balanced' kind of a story? WTF? Is this a goddamn political blog? There are hundreds of those out there, why did we have to drag it in here, and worse still, couldn't we try to stick to relevant issues, or barring that, actual fucking news?
Are we all supposed to spin off of some technological analysis of this gaffe? (Kerry must have been getting his 'updates' from Windows XP. he he.)
I mean, can someone step up and tell me what possible reason someone would think that should be posted. And for that matter, why would an editor accept it?
I had this sinking feeling that having a politics section would somehow cloud the otherwise mostly worthwhile content on slashdot, but I never could have predicted the results would be this dismal.
Well, since we're on the subject of lies, and deception, let's look at the degrees of each of these cases.
While investigating a supposedly thirty-year-old document, a news team discovered that the writer expressed similar reservations verbally. They also discover that the circumstantial facts were all true (missed a physical...outside pressure applied to fudge some paperwork...etc.) News team therefore assumes a document is valid. Sloppy journalism, yes. Personal vendetta by a journalist to sacrifice his career and reputation to smear the President? Doubtful, but some of you will believe anything...
Contrast that to your example. "Everyone and his brother" hasn't expressed similar doubts about Kerry's service. Actually, of all of the servicemen on those 3 patrol boats, ONE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT has his doubts...the rest of the "everyone" got this information third-hand. They happen to hook up with some Texas political operatives who smeared McCain 5 years ago, they write a book and form a supposed "group" of Swift Boat Vets. Sorry, pretty low on the credibility chart for me.
You, however, seem to have been swept up in the story about the story.
document
While we're on the subject of foregone assumptions,
"everyone and his brother" hasn't expressed doubts about Kerry's service...and while the Swift Boat Vets have Let's see, if we examine what was said
wow. So many open targets...where to begin...
1. Michael Moore doesn't own 62 stations, and he didn't force anyone to show his movie. He made it, and people gladly lined up to see it. It may have been a little too conspiritorial in a few places, but no one has proved it untrue, and it's certainly not showing up masquerading as a news show.
2. Despite what you are determined to believe, while the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out and guess what, they support what's expressed in the memos. That's what made it possible to verify them. Everyone and their brother agreed that what's in them is true.
3. George Soros also has not forced anyone to broadcast anything. He's written a rational essay, and paid for it to be dispatched like any other advertising. See point #1.
Now if Dan Rather had put Fahrenheit 9/11 on TV and dressed it up as news, then you might have a point, but you seem to be hanging on to your simplistic views a little too tightly.
Vel Satis has been awarded the maximum 5-star rating from Euro NCAP, an independant consortium. It is now the safest saloon in the executive-car segment.
gears are for wimps
AC, meet dictionary.
You seem to have confused the term 'liberal' with 'politically correct.'
These quotes seem to suggest it's unconstitutional for anyone other than Congress to declare war.
Congress still has (and did have) the right to declare war, and they turned it over to Bush to use at his disposal. (In theory, at least, I don't think he actually declared anything.)
Why not a collection of quotes about how Congresspeople are lemmings?
gears? we don't need no stinking gears.
First of all, we won't be be able to crack any encryption.
Private-key encryption will still be just as safe (most likely).
Public key encryption based on factoring will be the first casualty.
Given the fact that patches, fixes, and reimplementations are developed and administered all the time, there's no reason to think that fixing vulnerable systems won't be a fairly trivial re-implementation of some sort. Even if a bunch of systems are left unpatched, it's a long way from IBM labs to some script kiddie's Quantum iPod.
There will be market-hyped hysteria, and a massive cottage industry of re-implementations of security protocols. Think Y2K but worse.
gears? we don't need no stinking gears
You:
The blonde woman with at least 2 tattoos, one on your lower back and one on your stomach. You allowed your boyfriend to use his cell phone camera to take many seductive photos and videos of you and him engaged in various sex acts. How did he get you to pose naked with the new rims he bought for his civic? I'm willing to bet that when he showed his buddies those pictures, this enraged you enough to smash his cell phone on the ground, shattering it to pieces.
Me:
The one who found the smashed cell phone near Armitage and Western and picked up the flash card full of images and videos.
Don't worry baby, I'll treat you right. I don't even own a cell phone.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
this is in or around Bucktown
gears? we don't need no stinking gears
Tyler's a great rider, and surely a tough one, but I don't think that makes him more likely to take it this year.
Ullrich has won it once (at 22), came in second five times, and has won twice as many one-day classics and tours (and more substantial ones, at that). A bit more of a champion's resume, if that counts for something.
There are plenty other regulations for international competitive cycling:
-the entire bicycle must weigh at least 6.8 kg
-the frame must be of the 'double diamond' design (this rules out recumbents)
-no fairings
-all competitors are encouraged to use performance enhancing drugs (and their masking agents), as long as the team manager's girlfriend's doctor's cousin carries them.
Yes, I probably misrembered the unit of distance, maybe it was 2 seconds/40 seconds per 'lap' - whatever that was.
Aero wheels are more effective at shaving time than aero bars. To a degree, a cyclist can change their riding style in the drops to cheat the wind (with a tradeoff in power or endurance), but 72 spokes whipping through the air? No cheating there. Aero wheels still bring advantage in the climbs, while aero bars are just extra weight. I'm not saying they're useless, just not as effective as low-spoke count bladed wheels or discs.
His point is probably more from a scientific point of view; that is, is the tradeoff between weight, cost, and performance worth it?
Serious cycling is an excellent book by a former US Olympic cycling coach that addresses this. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it goes something like this:
-a one pound reduction in bike weight will save a cyclist 2 seconds over the course of a kilometer
-a simple reduction in aerodynamic drag, such as replacing 36-spoke wheels with disc wheels will save a cyclist 40 seconds over a kilometer despite the considerable weight penalty
So spending $x on a titanium seat bolt is usually a waste of money, in terms of performance. Or in otherwords, you might make it to the top of your hill quicker, but over the course of the ride, the more aerodynamic bike may get to the hill well before you.
Disclosure: the author of this post has a titanium seat bolt on his sub-fifteen pound single speed.
Don't want it on the main page? That's what your homepage preferences are for.
I don't why everyone gets their panties in a bunch of a few editorializing words in postings. You want supposedly straight facts and not much else? Try news.google.com.
The whole notion of a community discussion site is built on opinions, to muzzle the opinions of the poster is asinine. Unlike a journalist, a story poster has no professional responsibility to maintain objectivity.
So content developers and censorship-sensitive folks are predictably up in arms about the whole thing, but I have to say, I think this is a good idea.
I have young kids (2 and 4), and sadly, there are plenty of movies I think they'd like, but they just won't get played because of a couple of words here and there. If they were older, I could explain to them what they were, and why we don't use them, but as they're soaking up language like sponges at the moment, it's just not prudent.
For example, we saw a movie last weekend, and it was 99.99% ok, but it had the words bitch, damn, and ass in it. What I found particularly annoying was that this was a movie somewhat geared toward kids (Casper), and so I can't imagine why they chose to put those words in it, it's not like the dialogue was critical to the chiaroscuro of the characters. Luckily, they missed the words, but it's not something I'd keep in the collection. Luckily, that's a crap movie, so no one will miss it, but there are loads of other movies (like the Blues Brothers, for example) that I think they'd like (James Brown and car crashes, who wouldn't), but there are just a couple seconds I'd like to clip out here and there. Not forever mind you, but until they're old enough to know why they shouldn't use those words.
There's a void of decent content out there that's suitable for kids. I don't want to be stuck with Disney crap or any other warmed over Barney garbage. We want the right to buy our music and have fair use over it, why not our movies? If you buy a video game, you often have the option of 'turning down' the gore, why should this be any different?
I'm sure in the long run, I'd be disappointed with the level of 'editorializing' that the machine does, but like I said, soon enough they'll be old enough to hear/see some of it and besides, I'm sure they'll know how to deactivate it by the time they're 8 or so.
CLI
Get an old visor, and add a portable keyboard.
This one, while a bit pricey, feels like a regular keyboard while in use, but folds up to about the size of a wallet otherwise.
You've obviously sampled the Republican Kool Aid that so much of your taxes are wasted on social services. If you were to add up the federal funds spent on gambling and alcohol treatment, it still wouldn't add up to the price of a single F-18 (not that I'm suggesting F-18s are a waste of tax dollars).
Progressive values, that is, looking after the poor, the sick, the SOL, and yes, the destitute alcoholic gambling addicts, are American ideals, not leftist ones.
Perhaps you should read a history book, where you would find that once upon a time, a number of Republicans like Roosevelt and Truman supported 'additional services and welfare costs' like the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the GI bill, and Federal Jobs Programs...but now, since the conservative hacks have all but driven moderates out of the Repugnant party, it's all just 'entitlements' huh?
Oh wait, look, both the EPA and the National Park System were also created by Republicans, but that's another post...
Anti-virus software has proven to be not enough and firewalls create problems while performing daily business tasks on the server from home.
You seem to have a cheap/free/software-only firewall. Try this Router/Firewall/VPN/File and ftp server. It's basically a linux-based router with an Intel IXP422 processor. Disclosure: I work there, but aside from that, it's a pretty sick little toy.
Unlike most cheap/software-only firewalls, you can configure the firewall on many levels (initial/final/input/output/WAN/LAN/PPPoE), you can specifically block/allow AIM file sharing, Kazaa, Half-Life, smtp, etc. You can even put a box in the DMZ if you really want something naked out there. Plus it can be a File and FTP server by adding a firewire/USB hard drive. The firewall configuration capabilities alone are pretty much only matched in products that cost 2-300 more. VPN access while you're on the road, etc, ok, enough marketing shpiel...check out the 'learn how' link on the page linked above. I know folks are lined up to say 'I can do that on my 486 with IPtables and...' but you can pretty much set all this up in half an hour.
You can find it $220 or so, and while that seems high compared to 'old 486' option, personally, the time it saved me was worth it. I know a fair bit about linux, but it would have burned up a bunch of my time to get all that working.
It's also worth noting that I've been to a couple G movies and I've never seen an R movie advertised.
According to this article , it was enough of a problem that the MPAA decided to self-impose some rules on the subject a few years back (presumably before the government did it for them). It also seems they have recently forgotten about those rules.
I'm not saying you can't watch your pole-dancing skanks, though perhaps you could do it: a. not during something rated "Y-7" -- like a sporting event, or b. in the evening when most kids are in bed. I'm not looking for a candy coated world, maybe just one where you can watch something rated "Y-7" (as the superbowl, and most sports are) that doesn't have slutty dancing chicks in it, or in the ads. Nobody needs their daughter to see that. It's interesting that you assume I wouldn't want my son to see such women, but I was more concerned with my daughter. Kids copy what they see, and these images are not real people, they are exaggerated sex kittens. Once again, I'm talking about certain programs, so I wouldn't expect, say, Soul Train, to suddenly do away with booty dancing.
Your comparisons bring up a couple points: I wouldn't have to explain to my kids what breasts are. There's nothing wrong with them per se, in art, even a soap ad on a Paris bus stop wouldn't even get a second look from them. That's my point, outlawing that will do nothing for the eyecandy and sexual innuendo so generously sprinkled on everything else. You can never really develop enforceable rules for it, I guess the best you can hope for is to bitch at the advertisers and say, "I'm offended that you would run a commercial that implied that Tiger woods had a three way in the back of his Buick. My kids were watching that golf tournament, you bastards!"
As far as porn on public TV, sure it happens in Japan and Europe, but not in the middle of the day.
So many people in this discussion have taken the stance that you should just turn off the TV or you're a bad parent. That's just bullshit. TV can be valuable and provide positive views of the world, and I shouldn't have to weld it permanently on sesame street to make sure the kids don't get an eyeful of the pseudo-lesbo-incestuous Coors Twins in the middle of the day. Sorry to deprive you.
I think you're ironically hitting the nail on the head.
You wouldn't let a 5-year-old listen to Howard Stern's show, because you know what to expect. The Super Bowl, on the other hand, is a sporting event, and it isn't automatically the exclusive domain of adults.
What you're saying could be applied to movies: You take a kid to a G-rated movie, but the preview was R-rated. Oh well, don't let your kid watch it, or at least teach him about it. Like that's realistic. Certain things on TV (like sports) should be ok for kids to watch.
At a Cubs game, if you get seats in the 'family section' and yell "Fuck the Yankees" you will be ejected. Nobody's crying a river over their first amendment rights there.
The sad thing about all this is, it doesn't really address what I think is the real problem. You have a dozen pseudo-pornstar-cheerleaders dancing around P Diddy, but all the attention is on the Boob (which personally, I thought was just clumsy innuendo, and somehow a tiny bit more artistically licensed). So big deal, the f-word and the boob will bring a half million dollar fine, but a cadre of pole-dancing skanks will replace her, because they're legal. I think the FCC is going to pat itself on the back while doing virtually nothing, but frankly, they are trying to put a band aid on a leper.
I'm no prude, but I'd like my kids to be inspired by healthy, athletic, and intelligent people. That's why I try to keep them from seeing most everything on TV, but when your kids can't watch sports because they think we need a midriff to keep us all entertained between plays, then yeah, it's time to cage the networks and advertisers and stick to the action on the field.
Shouldn't be hard, pick a open issues site and see who hosts them? That's part of the reason some of them do it, for exposure, good karma, brand awareness, etc.
Wow.
Hundreds of doomsayers predicting the demise of this, and not one mention (modded up at least) of Windows ripping off the Mac interface...and Apple LOSING the subsequent lawsuit.
According to one legal analysis, Microsoft's legal strategy was that of "breaking Apple's nebulous 'gestalt' and 'look-and-feel' theory into specific identifiable elements and then knocking each one down like uncopyrightable bowling pins...demonstrating nearly two dozen windowing systems...that used elements Apple claimed to own.
Doesn't sound much different here, I doubt they'd waste their time on it.
At first I thought, oh great, the stormtroopers have overreacted, but I have to agree, this guy is a opportunistic scumbag.
While I doubt this actually fits the legal definition of extortion, the cops have to accept the fact that, in accepting a 'free' site (without an enforceable written or indisputable oral contract), they probably have no legitimate rights to the content or the domain. So much for free.
The webmaster screwed up in that he was probably trying to cash in on 'development time' (if he did in fact spend much time on it), and as such, HE is SOL because he also has no contract. In fact, since there's a snowball's chance in hell that he paid $300k in bandwidth overage fees, he's an idiot because he can't even prove that's a fair price.
I doubt they will make extortion stick, but they succeeded is seriously fscking this guy's life up.
Maybe I should try the wayback machine or google cache...and sell them the reconstructed site, for say $50k? Hm. I've got work to do.
To be honest, I love the technology, but when it needs attention, I hate it.
Case in point, I recently came home, and within minutes, had to reconfigure my router/firewall (conflicting with my wife's work), I had to call directv because the new card they sent me has mysteriously fscked up my TV. My new TiVo has decided to switch stations to record what it thinks we like, so in the middle of some previously approved show, my kids find themselves suddenly watching Barney, who is dinosaura non grata in my house. Now I have to do maintenance on the TiVo so it won't do that anymore. It's not the technology, it's the goddamned maintenance, especially the 'features' installed by the manufacturers, that drives me nuts.
I know what I'm getting into when I crack open the TiVo or triple secure my wireless network. I don't appreciate having to do this crap on a day-to-day basis.
My first choice would be to buy a decent espresso machine and some some high quality pods (I prefer fine grounds, but pods are cleaner for the office). Someone at my office does it and it makes the day worth living sometimes. I can hear the barely imperceptible screeee of the steamer warming up from 15 cubes away, like a dog hears a silent whistle. Granted, the owner of the machine is way up the food chain, so she can get away with steaming a pot of milk every now and then. It might be different if every other cube jockey did it. But then, lattes are for wusses, and espresso needs no steam, of course.
Second, I would look into a french press, as mentioned elsewhere on this post. All you need is course grounds and hot water. Infinitely better than your garden variety industrial hotpot crap.
Third, I would look into cold-press method. With 2/3 less acid, it's easier on your stomach (quite a benefit if you'll be pulling a long coding shift), and you can have it cold or add hot water to it. You can make the extract overnight, and bring it with you. It's probably some of the smoothest coffee you'll encounter, but a bit of advanced planning is needed.