You, sir, are an arrogant twit. With attitudes like yours and the orignal poster's, Linus wouldn't have started Linux and the FreeBSD folks wouldn't have continued their work once Linux came out.
The orignal poster was not a techie and I suspect you both know it.
How do you break the data "streem?" You see, if you even *READ* the data stream, Bob knows you've intercepted it and Alice can send it again.
This says nothing regarding making Alice believe that YOU are Bob (man in the middle), and it still necessitates some sort of authentication. IOW, if Alice thinks you're Bob and Bob thinks you're Alice, you still have problems, but there's no cyphering that you can do to fix that.
What I find interesting is that no one's mentioned some sort of quantum authentication yet. That kinda worries me, since at least half the point of public key cryptography is to prove you are who you say you are.
Most folks I know consider a "consulting firm" to be a bunch of contracted employees.
If you guys are contractual employees, aren't you being hypocritical (or really stupid:) by saying contracted guys are smart while your guys aren't as smart as contracted work? I mean, they *ARE* contracted work....
Maybe I've totally misread the statement. If that's the case, feel free to give me a good drubbing.
The taiwanese companies who build the actual chips are raising prices substantially. Reminiscent of OPEC once they had a virtual oligopoly. Don't monopolies/oligopolies suck?
FWIW, PostgreSQL still doesn't do row locking. It doesn't lock while you read. Period. This is substantially better than row locking, provided you're ready for the results.
ftp> cd/pub/gnome/gnome-1.0/sources
250 CWD command successful. ftp> ls OR* 200 PORT command successful. 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for 'file list'. ORBit-0.4.3.tar.gz 226 Transfer complete. 20 bytes received in 0.00 seconds (20000.00 Kbytes/sec)
That makes it illegal for me to buy/sell any "hot" stock (a new stock that rises more than 1/8 in the first 4 hours on any given day) or get into an IPO.
It's not necessarily a good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless.
The title is in reference to the well-placed bagles, heads, salami, etc. that cover up people's genetalia in Austin Powers. In Eyes Wide Shut, there are people in the way of every sex scene in the sex house. It's just stupid looking and does detract from the show.
1) He never stated christianity should be a state religion, you stated this not him. You put words into his mouth, so you could have something to rant about and not address the valid points of his argument. He states that America needs to live by a standard of decency. The only plausable implication by the rest of his post is that Christianity is the only standard of decency that can be used.
2) You do not know this man well enough to make such accusations against his character. ad hominem. Likewise...
3) Again, he never said parents should not be allowed to decide on the information their children should be exposed to. The problem here is you keep on putting words into his mouth and then base your argument on them. Which is why he said the mother was a poor mother and should be ashamed of herself for letting her children see this wretched movie.
Many schools _do_ forbid such things, and their actions are being upheld in court. Moreover, they forbid religious meetings in public school buildings after school hours, while other groups are allowed to do so, denying those groups equal access to public resources. And teachers are forbidden to pray with students privately, even when the student expresses a wish for such activity. Sure. Right. Uh-huh.
And the recent blathering by the religious "right" about how they're succeeding in getting prayer groups and so forth started all around the country is just hogwash.
Sure you aren't smoking something when you spoke those untruths. Doesn't your religion condemn those who lie?
The spirit of the Church/state separation doctrine would have everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law; what's happened instead is that Christians are treated as second-class citizens. No you're not. You can't use a school to push your religion because that gives the impression the government is supporting your religion. That is illegal. As such, the government can't allow that. This is a restriction against the government, not you. Besides, how come I, an atheist, have to pay taxes to support your buildings? Yes, since you're a non-profit agency, my taxes go up while yours don't. If churches had to pay taxes, do you know how much money that would bring in?
I spent years in a Jesuit school, wherein classroom time was set aside for a prayer every morning. I think you mean "public school policy"; you would do well to note that it is in public schools, specifically, that Christians are denied their faith in a matter as harmless as prayer. Just who is preventing you from praying in school? Is there some evil Big Brother walking around, peering into your thoughts and slapping you upside the head if you clasp your hands in prayer? I didn't think so.
Is it illegal to spend "classroom time" on the spiritual teachings of Ghandi and Maya Angelou? Um, if they're truely the "spiritual" teachings, yes. This is different from a comparitive religions type course, and it would do you well to understand the difference between that type of class and what you want to take place.
Are the words of _Reverend_ Martin Luther King, Jr., in his _I Have A Dream_ speech, forbidden from the halls of public schools? Of course not. They are curriculum, as must be a discussion of the Christian roots of many in this country. I'd have no objection to a passionless discourse on the many religions that constitute America's makeup. It would be of great satisfaction to me to learn some Islamic history alongside Confucianism; in fact, I did hear quite a lot of it while I went to public schools (though I might wish for more, centered as the public schools are on Western European history). Good, so you do understand what a comparative religions class is like.
But you can't say that denying Christian freedoms once they walk into a public building is "fair treatment". I say it merely for the sake of argument. I don't ask for _fair_ from you, or anyone else, honestly. If I depended upon _fair_ from the likes of my peers I think I would be greatly disappointed. You claim that you get a comparative religion class and yet there is still something "unfair" going on here. Please elaborate. Oh yes, you can't go preaching to students.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothin here.
"applications that work on Monterey ... will also run on Linux boxes." Emph mine.
The orignal poster was not a techie and I suspect you both know it.
I was just pointing out *HE* was trolling. Sheesh.
Troll.
How do you break the data "streem?" You see, if you even *READ* the data stream, Bob knows you've intercepted it and Alice can send it again.
This says nothing regarding making Alice believe that YOU are Bob (man in the middle), and it still necessitates some sort of authentication. IOW, if Alice thinks you're Bob and Bob thinks you're Alice, you still have problems, but there's no cyphering that you can do to fix that.
What I find interesting is that no one's mentioned some sort of quantum authentication yet. That kinda worries me, since at least half the point of public key cryptography is to prove you are who you say you are.
That's why they're so spiffy, in a nutshell. There's an interesting article (referenced on Slashdot, ironically enough) describing Quantum Crypto.
I knew about that bug via BugTrak a long time ago. And for Red Hat admins, Red Hat's errata page is hardly "obscure."
And it runs either as a seperate process or inline with the current httpd process on Linux depending on how you configure it.
I tried to install FreeBSD the other day to play with it again, but it won't sit in my extended partition. Is that possible yet?
Most folks I know consider a "consulting firm" to be a bunch of contracted employees.
If you guys are contractual employees, aren't you being hypocritical (or really stupid :) by saying contracted guys are smart while your guys aren't as smart as contracted work? I mean, they *ARE* contracted work....
Maybe I've totally misread the statement. If that's the case, feel free to give me a good drubbing.
The taiwanese companies who build the actual chips are raising prices substantially. Reminiscent of OPEC once they had a virtual oligopoly. Don't monopolies/oligopolies suck?
Who would shoot their teammates just to blow away their armor.
Someone moderate that one up.
FWIW, PostgreSQL still doesn't do row locking. It doesn't lock while you read. Period. This is substantially better than row locking, provided you're ready for the results.
asm-i386/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
The uid is an unsigned, not signed, so anything between 0 and 65535 inclusive is legal.
There are 32-bit uid patches around.
ARGH!
Freggin SEC. The problem is my mom can get punished if I lie. :(
My mom works for an investment company.
That makes it illegal for me to buy/sell any "hot" stock (a new stock that rises more than 1/8 in the first 4 hours on any given day) or get into an IPO.
It's not necessarily a good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless.
And it's killer hardware, to boot.
The title is in reference to the well-placed bagles, heads, salami, etc. that cover up people's genetalia in Austin Powers. In Eyes Wide Shut, there are people in the way of every sex scene in the sex house. It's just stupid looking and does detract from the show.
Since then, I have probably had less than 1 beer's worth of alcohol in my 21 years of life.
Not counting stuff *IN* baked goods where the alcohol is cooked out and it isn't intoxicating.
1) He never stated christianity should be a state religion, you stated this not him. You put words into his mouth, so you could have something to rant about and not address the valid points of his argument.
He states that America needs to live by a standard of decency. The only plausable implication by the rest of his post is that Christianity is the only standard of decency that can be used.
2) You do not know this man well enough to make such accusations against his character. ad hominem.
Likewise...
3) Again, he never said parents should not be allowed to decide on the information their children should be exposed to. The problem here is you keep on putting words into his mouth and then base your argument on them.
Which is why he said the mother was a poor mother and should be ashamed of herself for letting her children see this wretched movie.
Glass houses and all that.
Sure. Right. Uh-huh.
And the recent blathering by the religious "right" about how they're succeeding in getting prayer groups and so forth started all around the country is just hogwash.
Sure you aren't smoking something when you spoke those untruths. Doesn't your religion condemn those who lie?
The spirit of the Church/state separation doctrine would have everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law; what's happened instead is that Christians are treated as second-class citizens.
No you're not. You can't use a school to push your religion because that gives the impression the government is supporting your religion. That is illegal. As such, the government can't allow that. This is a restriction against the government, not you. Besides, how come I, an atheist, have to pay taxes to support your buildings? Yes, since you're a non-profit agency, my taxes go up while yours don't. If churches had to pay taxes, do you know how much money that would bring in?
I spent years in a Jesuit school, wherein classroom time was set aside for a prayer every morning. I think you mean "public school policy"; you would do well to note that it is in public schools, specifically, that Christians are denied their faith in a matter as harmless as prayer.
Just who is preventing you from praying in school? Is there some evil Big Brother walking around, peering into your thoughts and slapping you upside the head if you clasp your hands in prayer? I didn't think so.
Is it illegal to spend "classroom time" on the spiritual teachings of Ghandi and Maya Angelou?
Um, if they're truely the "spiritual" teachings, yes. This is different from a comparitive religions type course, and it would do you well to understand the difference between that type of class and what you want to take place.
Are the words of _Reverend_ Martin Luther King, Jr., in his _I Have A Dream_ speech, forbidden from the halls of public schools? Of course not. They are curriculum, as must be a discussion of the Christian roots of many in this country. I'd have no objection to a passionless discourse on the many religions that constitute America's makeup. It would be of great satisfaction to me to learn some Islamic history alongside Confucianism; in fact, I did hear quite a lot of it while I went to public schools (though I might wish for more, centered as the public schools are on Western European history).
Good, so you do understand what a comparative religions class is like.
But you can't say that denying Christian freedoms once they walk into a public building is "fair treatment".
I say it merely for the sake of argument. I don't ask for _fair_ from you, or anyone else, honestly. If I depended upon _fair_ from the likes of my peers I think I would be greatly disappointed.
You claim that you get a comparative religion class and yet there is still something "unfair" going on here. Please elaborate. Oh yes, you can't go preaching to students.
And just what is the problem?